In this bulletin:

• Karzai unhurt in Taleban attack – BBC
• Afghan police seize 7 suspects in Karzai assasination attempt
• Musharraf condemns attack on Karzai
• Afghan government claims 57 Taliban killed in fighting (1st Lead)‎
• Taliban ambush kills British soldier in Afghanistan
• Report: British Officials' Secret Plan to Send Prince Harry to ‎Afghanistan
• Afghan police general assassinated
• Taliban 'radio boss' joins Afghan peace scheme
• Afghan eyewitnesses on row between attorney-general, ex-commander
• Mrs. Laura Bush Statement: Condemning the Assassination of Zakia Zaki, ‎Director of Peace Radio
• UNESCO Director-General condemns murders of Afghan journalists Zakia Zaki and Shokiba Sanga
• Afghan national police dying at record rate
• Afghan refugees to be moved out of Tajik capital to the regions - TV
• Albanian parliament approves dispatch of peacekeepers to Afghanistan
• Sarkozy says French troops to stay in Afghanistan
• MacKay admits 6 Afghan abuse allegations exist
• Conservatives Face New Criticism Over Revised Number Of Claims Of ‎Afghan Prisoner Abuse
• Editorial - Afghanistan dodge
• House's Afghan aid bill sends a message to Bush
• 'US at fault for rising Afghan poppy crop'
• The Winnable War
• UNMACA, Ministry of Public Health and Ministry of Education have signed ‎a Memorandum of Understanding for victim assistance and mine risk ‎education activities
• The west has to accept that there is no military solution
• Flashpoint: Peril in Pakistan
• etisalat to begin Afghan operations by July

Karzai unhurt in Taleban attack – BBC

‎‎ Afghan President Hamid Karzai has escaped unhurt after the Taleban fired ‎rockets at a meeting he was addressing in the province of Ghazni. ‎

Several rockets were fired but missed their target and nobody was hurt, ‎according to government officials. Some of the audience panicked during the ‎incident, but Mr Karzai urged calm and was able to finish his speech. ‎

Earlier, officials said 30 Taleban and two police had been killed in intense ‎fighting in north-west Afghanistan. Militants attacked police in Badghis ‎province, near the Turkmenistan border. ‎

The Taleban have disputed the government's account. The police chief of Badghis ‎province told the BBC that a large number of Taleban insurgents had launched an ‎attack in a remote district on Saturday afternoon. ‎

He said that in six hours of fighting, 30 of the Taleban and two policemen were ‎killed, adding that the district was back in government control. ‎

A Taleban spokesman, also talking to the BBC, contradicted this account, saying ‎the rebels were in control of the district and had inflicted heavier casualties ‎on the government side.‎

In other developments: ‎

• Twenty-seven insurgents have been killed in Nato air strikes in the ‎district of Shinkay in the southern Zabul province, the defence ministry ‎says ‎

• A general has been shot dead in central Kandahar while having his hair ‎cut ‎

• A British soldier has been killed in the southern province of Helmand ‎

Officials said Mr Karzai's visit to Ghazni was routine. He was giving a speech ‎to elders and residents of Andar district about the building of roads and ‎hospitals in the area when the attack occurred. ‎

Rockets fell a few hundred metres from where Mr Karzai was speaking. According ‎to local journalists, he briefly stopped his speech, before telling people to ‎calm down and return to their seats. ‎

The Afghan president, who has survived two assassination attempts in recent ‎years, was taken away under heavy security. ‎

Afghan police seize 7 suspects in Karzai assasination attempt

Last Updated: Monday, June 11, 2007 - The Associated Press ‎

Afghan officials have arrested seven suspects in connection with an apparent ‎assassination attempt against President Hamid Karzai, a government spokesman ‎said Monday.‎

Karzai was giving a speech on Sunday to elders and residents in Andar district ‎in central Afghanistan when rockets were fired nearby, said Ali Shah Ahmadzai, ‎the provincial police chief. The rockets missed their target, and no one was ‎hurt.‎

‎"After the rockets were fired, we launched a search operation in the area," ‎Interior Ministry spokesman Zemeri Bashary said Monday. "We arrested seven ‎people from nearby villages." He provided no further details.‎

Witnesses said they heard between three and six rockets, but the Taliban ‎claimed it fired 12. The rockets missed their target, with two of them landing ‎some 200 metres away from the crowd, said Arif Yaqoubi, a local reporter ‎attending the event.‎

‎"Please sit down," Karzai told a nervous crowd under a tent in a school yard. ‎‎"Don't be scared. Nothing is happening."‎

Karzai finished his speech and his security detail whisked him off by ‎helicopter to Kabul, witnesses and officials said. It was the third attempt on ‎Karzai's life since he became president following the ouster of the Taliban ‎regime in 2001.‎

Purported Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi told the Associated Press that ‎Taliban militants were behind the attack.‎

‎"The Taliban knew that Karzai was coming to Andar district. When Karzai was ‎meeting with the people, the Taliban fired 12 rockets," Ahmadi said by ‎satellite phone from an undisclosed location. "The rockets fell nearby."‎

In Kabul, the former head of Afghanistan's radio and television department ‎under the Taliban regime joined the government during a ceremony organized by ‎Ministry of Information and Culture.‎

Mohammad Ishaq Nezamy, who until recently lived in Peshawar, Pakistan, praised ‎Afghan government efforts at co-opting former Taliban and their sympathizers ‎during a brief speech on Sunday.‎

‎"Now it is up to the Afghan people that they should start negotiations with ‎each other and find solutions for their problems," Nezamy said.‎

Musharraf condemns attack on Karzai

‎(AFP) - 11 June 2007 - ISLAMABAD - Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on ‎Monday expressed concern over a “cowardly” attempt on the life of his Afghan ‎counterpart Hamid Karzai, a statement said. ‎

Military ruler Musharraf, who has been at loggerheads with his fellow ally in ‎the US-led “war on terror” for several months, also called for a firm stance to ‎end terrorism in the region.‎

Karzai escaped unhurt after Taleban militants fired rockets Sunday at a school ‎in the southwestern Afghan province of Ghazni, where he was meeting with tribal ‎elders.‎

‎“I was deeply concerned to know about the cowardly attack on your life while ‎you were addressing a public meeting in Ghazni,” Musharraf said in his message ‎to Karzai, according to the statement.‎

It said Musharraf added: “We are grateful to almighty Allah that you are safe ‎and no harm has come to the life of our other Afghan brothers as well.”‎

Musharraf, who has himself survived at least two assassination attempts blamed ‎on the Taleban’s Al-Qaeda allies, said “the attack reinforces our common ‎resolve to eliminate the menace of terrorism and violence from the region.”‎

Karzai and Musharraf agreed to step up joint efforts against terrorism at a ‎meeting in the Turkish capital, Ankara, in late April, which was held to ease ‎simmering tensions.‎

The pair have recently traded barbs over accusations that Islamabad is not ‎doing enough to stop Taleban militants based in Pakistan’s northwestern tribal ‎areas from launching cross-border attacks into Afghanistan.‎

Afghan government claims 57 Taliban killed in fighting (1st Lead)‎

Jun 10, 2007, 8:47 GMT - Kabul - A Taliban attack on a district and ‎subsequent fighting left 30 Taliban fighters and two police killed in ‎northwestern Afghanistan, while 27 other militants were killed by ‎Afghan and coalition forces in the southern region, officials said on ‎Sunday. ‎

Taliban fighters attacked Bala Murgab district of northwestern Badghis province ‎and quickly captured the district on Saturday, said Daoud Kohi, provincial ‎spokesman for the governor. ‎

‎'The reinforcement was deployed to the district and during a six-hour battle ‎the joint forces killed some 30 Taliban and recaptured the district,' Kohi ‎said, adding that two police were also killed in the firefight. Kohi said that ‎the search operations were still ongoing in the district. ‎

Taliban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yousif Ahmadi, speaking to Deutsche Presse-‎Agentur dpa from an undisclosed location, said their forces still had control ‎of the town and had killed 10 police during a five-hour gun battle. ‎

Ahmadi said both police and administrative chiefs of the district had escaped ‎before the Taliban reached the headquarters, but the militants captured three ‎police officers from the district. Ahmadi said that it was the first time that ‎Taliban forces had captured a district in the north-western region of the ‎country, since the radical regime was ousted by invading US forces in late ‎‎2001. ‎

The Afghan Defence Ministry said 27 Taliban fighters were killed in a clash ‎that included airstrikes in southern Zabul province on Friday. ‎

The joint forces attacked Taliban hideouts in Shinkay district of the province ‎and killed 27 Taliban, ministry spokesman General Zahir Azimi said. US military ‎also said in Saturday that the combined force killed several Taliban militants ‎in Zabul province, but could not provide further details. ‎

A NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) soldier was killed ‎and four others were wounded in a combat with suspected insurgents in southern ‎Afghanistan, the military said. ‎

The firefight took place on Saturday, the statement said, but it did not ‎identify the soldiers nor did it provide details regarding the exact location ‎of the incident. ‎

However, Taliban said in a statement posted at their website that they had ‎blown up a NATO military vehicle in Sangin district of southern Helmand ‎province, killing and wounding all the soldiers in it. ‎

The statement said the attack came as the forces were trying to move to the ‎Joshaly area in the district, which had been captured by Taliban on Friday. ‎

Most of the coalition forces stationed in Helmand province are British ‎soldiers. Another ISAF statement said 'several influential Taliban leaders' ‎were targeted by a 'precision' airstrike in Helmand province on Saturday. ‎

The statement said the targeted Taliban leaders were linked with Mullah Mahmoud ‎Baluch, a Taliban commander in the province, but did not say if they were ‎killed or wounded in the attack.‎

Taliban ambush kills British soldier in Afghanistan ‎

Sunday, 10 Jun 2007 08:28 ‎

Patrolling troops frequently come under attack in Afghanistan ‎

A British soldier died yesterday when Taliban forces ambushed his patrol in ‎Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has revealed.

‎ The soldier, from 1st Battalion The Grenadier Guards, was killed when the Land ‎Rover E-WMIK he or she was travelling in was hit by an explosion about three ‎kilometres out of Sangin in the unstable Helmand province.

‎ British forces then "came under sustained small arms and RPG fire from Taliban ‎positions", the MoD said.

‎ Reinforcements were called up to retrieve the casualties from the damaged Land ‎Rover vehicle as the Taliban continued firing at the British. They managed to ‎retrieve the casualties, taking them to a secure base where the killed soldier ‎was pronounced dead.

‎ ‎"The four casualties were moved onwards by helicopter to Camp Bastion where ‎they received medical treatment for minor injuries before being discharged ‎later this evening," the MoD said. "The next of kin have now been informed."

‎ The soldiers were travelling to assist another patrol which had been ambushed ‎when they themselves came under attack. Sixty British personnel have now died ‎in Afghanistan since UK forces began operations in the country in November ‎‎2001.‎

Report: British Officials' Secret Plan to Send Prince Harry to ‎Afghanistan

Sunday , June 10, 2007 – Sunday Times - British officials are planning to ‎deploy Prince Harry quietly to Afghanistan in an attempt to deter him from ‎quitting the army.‎

He is training at a remote British Army base in Alberta, Canada, from where he ‎can be flown to the war against the Taliban without attracting attention. The ‎death Saturday of the 60th British serviceman in Afghanistan means it could ‎still be as dangerous a posting as Iraq.‎

The prince, a junior officer in the Blues and Royals, is receiving extra ‎training on armored vehicles, particularly the Scimitar reconnaissance vehicle ‎used by his unit.‎

Defense chiefs banned the prince, who is third in line to the throne, from ‎accompanying his squadron to Iraq, where they are now patrolling the Iranian ‎border.‎

The ban was ordered by General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the army, last ‎month after a visit to Iraq when he was briefed about the threats to Harry.‎

Major-General Jonathan Shaw, the British commander, and intelligence officers ‎warned of an insurgent plan to ambush Harry’s troop and kidnap him. There had ‎been bomb attacks on the Scimitars then patrolling the Iranian border in an ‎apparent rehearsal for his arrival.‎

It was also argued that if Harry were given a desk job in the operations center ‎at the British headquarters in Basra, it would come under increased mortar and ‎rocket fire, seriously impeding operations and increasing the risk to troops.‎

Harry had repeatedly made clear to senior officers that if he was not allowed ‎to deploy on operations “to do his job," he would leave the army.‎

Whether a posting to another unit in Afghanistan would satisfy him is unclear, ‎however. If he is forced to do staff work behind a desk, he would be unlikely ‎to be happy. But if he goes on operations, he would again be at serious risk.‎

The Taliban are no less vicious than the insurgents in Iraq and if he were ‎captured, his fate would be the same as if he were taken hostage in Iraq. ‎However, with more troops in Afghanistan now than in Iraq — 7,000 to 5,500 — ‎and with British soldiers serving at half a dozen locations, army chiefs ‎believe they can keep him away from any media and encourage his fellow soldiers ‎to stay quiet.‎

Dannatt conceded Harry was “extremely disappointed” to be barred from going to ‎Iraq, but he ruled that the “specific” threats posed too great a risk.‎

Dannatt was said to be angered by media reports about Harry’s deployment to ‎Iraq even though Des Browne, the defense secretary, had announced it in ‎parliament.‎

The media also published details of his unit’s vehicles, what they do and where ‎they are likely to patrol — but all of this information could have been pieced ‎together from the Ministry of Defense (MoD) Web site.‎

The MoD said it did not discuss reports of where the prince was to deploy. ‎Clarence House declined to comment.‎

The latest British fatality is a soldier from the 1st Battalion, the Grenadier ‎Guards, who was killed in a Taliban ambush near Sangin in southern Afghanistan ‎Saturday.‎

He was among British and Afghan soldiers who were helping local people to widen ‎and deepen irrigation ditches. They fought off the attackers but the soldier ‎was killed and four others slightly wounded.‎

Afghan police general assassinated

Sun, 10 Jun 2007 PressTV Iran

The second most senior policeman in Afghanistan's southern province of Kandahar ‎has been shot dead in the latest of a series of assassinations.

‎ Kandahar' Chief of Police General Ismatullah Ailiaz said General Mohammad Daud ‎Saleh, was shot dead by gunmen on a motorbike late Saturday as he left a barber ‎shop in the city center.

‎ Saleh is the most senior policeman to be assassinated in the province. He was ‎one of two generals in the provincial police department along with Alizai.

‎ Alizai blamed the attack on the "enemies of the country", a term used by Afghan ‎officials to address Taliban fighters involved in a growing insurgency since ‎the 2001 US-led invasion of the country.

‎ A Kandahar religious council leader, the caretaker of one of Afghanistan's most ‎holy shrines and head of the provincial women's department were shot in the ‎same fashion during last months skein of assassinations.

‎ Kandahar's police are on the frontline of attacks by armed groups with more ‎than 200 of their forces having been killed since the beginning of the year. ‎

Taliban 'radio boss' joins Afghan peace scheme ‎

KABUL (AFP) - The former head of the Taliban regime's radio station and ‎spokesman for its leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, has surrendered to the Afghan ‎government under an amnesty scheme.‎

KABUL (AFP) - The former head of the Taliban regime's radio station and ‎spokesman for its leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, has surrendered to the Afghan ‎government under an amnesty scheme.‎

Afghan eyewitnesses on row between attorney-general, ex-commander

Text of report by Afghan independent Tolo TV on 8 June

‎[Presenter] The attorney-general has claimed that Gen Din Mohammad Jorhat's men ‎and guards have beaten him but Din Mohammad Jorhat has rejected the attorney-‎general's claim. He said the attorney-general had insulted him in the presence ‎of his family. According to eyewitnesses, there was an exchange of fire and the ‎Kabul-Parwan highway was closed to traffic for a while.‎

‎[Correspondent] Afghan Attorney-General Abdol Jabar Sabet said that he was ‎beaten by Gen Din Mohammad Jorhat and his bodyguards on Friday morning when he ‎and his friends were on their way to a picnic.‎

‎[Abdol Jabar Sabet] When I cleared the highway of vehicles and was standing in ‎the shade, this man and his many bodyguards got off a car. He asked me what I ‎was doing. I told him that I was clearing the highway. He asked me which ‎highway. I told him this highway. He attacked me. Actually, I did not what ‎instrument they used to attack me. A few minutes later, I learnt that they had ‎escaped.‎

‎[Correspondent] Mr Jorhat, in a telephone conversation, has dismissed Sabet's ‎claims.‎

‎[Gen Din Mohammad Jorhat] My family was with me, my wife and sons. They were in ‎the car. The attorney-general was standing by the street like a madman, hitting ‎everybody with bottles of water and swearing at them. My car accidentally got ‎there. He hit my driver with a bottle of water. I got off the car so to prevent ‎his voice being heard inside the car as my family was in the car. In fact, ‎there was hubbub. When I got off the car, he took action. As a result of his ‎inappropriate action and the shootings by them [incomplete sentence] God has ‎not oppressed our people to this extent that a person prevents us [from ‎holidaying] on Fridays and swears at us on the streets.‎

‎[Correspondent] But eyewitnesses tell a different story.‎

‎[First unidentified eyewitness] When the respectable attorney-general saw that ‎there was a crowd on the road and the road was blocked, instead of seeking help ‎from the police, he took bottles and swore at the people and beat the drivers. ‎When he reached Gen Jorhat's car, he hit Gen Jorhat's driver with a bottle. ‎That's when a clash took place between them.‎

‎[Second unidentified eyewitness] He hit Gen Jorhat's driver with a bottle of ‎water. After that, a clash took place. They used fists and kicks.‎

‎[Third unidentified eyewitness] They fought each other. There were many ‎bodyguards on the street. They beat the attorney-general.‎

‎[Fourth unidentified eyewitness] He hit the driver and the bodyguard of Gen ‎Jorhat with something, a bottle of water. Afterwards, they clashed.‎

‎[Correspondent] According to the eyewitnesses, fire was also exchanged and the ‎Kabul-Parwan highway was closed to traffic for one hour.‎

Mrs. Laura Bush Statement: Condemning the Assassination of Zakia Zaki, ‎Director of Peace Radio ‎

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--I want to express my deepest sympathies, and those ‎of the American people, to the people of Afghanistan and to Zakia Zaki’s ‎family. Zaki was murdered last week by gunmen reported to be supporters of the ‎Taliban insurgency. The former director of Peace Radio--a private station in ‎Jabal-us-Siraj, Afghanistan--Zaki leaves behind her husband and six children, ‎including an infant son. Zaki is the second prominent female Afghan journalist ‎to be murdered in a week. ‎

I strongly condemn the killings and urge the free world, nations which love ‎peace, to not only condemn the killings, but to use every ounce of their power ‎to prevent them from happening in the future. ‎

Zaki’s brutal killing is a reminder of the threat terrorism poses to the most ‎fundamental individual rights--including the rights to free speech, to a free ‎press, and to equal dignity for women. ‎

The oppression of women is central to the Taliban's vision for Afghanistan. In ‎the weeks following September 11, Americans were shocked to see the images of ‎Afghan women living under the Taliban regime--denied the right to work, the ‎right to move about freely, and the right to be educated. As Zaki's murder ‎shows, five years later, Taliban fighters still cling to their repressive ‎worldview. They oppose the free exchange of ideas, and long to return to a time ‎when girls could not attend school. ‎

Today, however, women and girls are in classrooms throughout Afghanistan--‎democracy has brought about a more free and open society. ‎

The American people stand with the people of Afghanistan and with Zaki’s ‎family. We are proud to support them in their efforts to build Afghanistan's ‎new democracy, and to secure a more hopeful and peaceful future for the ‎children of both our countries. ‎

UNESCO Director-General condemns murders of Afghan journalists Zakia Zaki and Shokiba Sanga

11-06-2007 (Paris) - "I am deeply saddened by the deaths of these pioneering women," the Director-General said.

The Director-General of UNESCO, Koïchiro Matsuura, condemned the cold-blooded killing Zakia Zaki, founder of one of the first community radio stations run entirely by women in Afghanistan, radio Sada – e – Sulh (Peace) in Jabul Seraj. The murder follows the killing a few days ago of television journalist Shokiba Sanga Amaaj, in her home on the evening of June 1.

“I am deeply saddened by the deaths of these pioneering women, and I vigorously condemn their murders” the Director-General said. “These crimes are all the more shocking because they not only undermine the basic human right of freedom of expression, but also the right of women to exercise a profession that is vital for the reconstruction of Afghanistan.”

Reports from Afghanistan indicate that Zakia Zaki was killed early during the night of June 5-6 in her home next to her infant son. Reports indicate also that a suspect has been arrested for the murder of the 22- year-old journalist, Shokiba Sanga Amaaj, who is reported to have been shot dead in her home in Kabul. Ms Amaaj worked as a reporter and presenter for the Pashtu-language private television channel Shamshad TV.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), suggests that she may have been killed “for the simple reason that she was a prominent media figure in a milieu that remains hostile to working women.”

In the documentary film “If I stand up” produced in 2005 by a group of Afghan camera-women as part of a UNESCO supported project, Zakia Zaki, said: “I created the first independent women’s radio in Afghanistan. Every beginning is difficult, but I overcome the obstacles…It started broadcasting from Jabul Seraj during the Talebans…We work with men as well as women because if men respect women’s sights, brothers to sisters, husband to wives, fathers to daughters, then women’s rights might become reality.”

The film production provided training for the first group of Afghan female video journalists on documentary filming and TV production in collaboration with the media NGO AINA.

Afghan national police dying at record rate ‎

The Washington Times - 06/08/2007, By Jason Motlagh

‎ KABUL, Afghanistan -- National police are dying at a record rate so far this ‎year and need urgent financial and technical support if a robust Taliban ‎insurgency is to be defeated in distant provinces, the Interior Ministry says.

‎More than 200 police officers have been killed since late March, with a marked ‎increase in suicide and roadside bombings compared to last year, ministry ‎spokesman Zemarai Bashary told The Washington Times.

‎"We've lost a big number of our police forces in attacks this year. We are ‎witnessing big casualties," he said.

‎Police are more vulnerable than Afghan army and international security forces ‎because they are often the only law enforcement on the ground in isolated areas ‎of the southern and eastern provinces, where the Taliban are most active, Mr. ‎Bashary said.

‎The deadliest recent attack on police was a Taliban ambush last week in ‎southern Zabul province that left 16 officers dead. On Wednesday, a district ‎police chief in eastern Paktika province was killed when a roadside bomb ‎exploded near his vehicle.

‎In another incident last Friday, militants attacked a police officer's house in ‎southern Ghazni province, killing five members of his family, according to ‎local officials, indicating that even relatives or those who cooperate with ‎police are targeted.

‎The spokesman noted that despite some improvements in staffing and training, ‎the police force still has "low capacity and capability" to cope with an enemy ‎that regularly strikes with heavy weapons such as mortars and rocket-propelled ‎grenades.

‎"What the police have to face them and resist are AK-47s, and at the maximum, ‎PKMs. That's it," he said, referring to a higher-caliber Soviet-made machine ‎gun.

‎The combination of poor equipment and low salaries has made it difficult to ‎recruit sufficient numbers of police, especially in risk areas, he said.

‎Some districts with populations of more than 100,000 have relied on just 25-30 ‎men whose duties are stretched over law enforcement, protecting civilians from ‎roving Taliban militants and drug eradication.

‎The average Afghan policeman makes just $70 a month, but the Interior Ministry ‎still expects to boost ranks by 20,000 men from the current level of roughly ‎‎62,000 over the next two years.

‎Officers only will receive a raise in salary due to continued funding ‎shortages, Mr. Bashary said.

Afghan refugees to be moved out of Tajik capital to the regions - TV‎

KABUL, June 9 (RIA Novosti) - Refugees from war-torn Afghanistan currently ‎staying in the capital of neighboring Tajikistan will be forced to move out of ‎the city within 10 days, Afghanistan's Ariana TV said Saturday. ‎

Law enforcement agencies in the capital, Dushanbe, told the channel that the ‎refugees would have to be resettled in remote regions of the former Soviet ‎republic, where they have permanent registration. About 2,000 Afghan refugees ‎currently live in Tajikistan. ‎

A group of Afghan refugees sent a petition on Friday to the United Nations ‎commission on refugees in Tajikistan demanding housing and work, included in ‎their rights as refugees, and urgently-needed food for their children. ‎

The refugees said the decision on the part of Tajik authorities to relocate ‎them was a hostile one. Refugee women told the channel that there are no ‎schools or hospitals, and no jobs in remote regions where their families are ‎registered, raising a real threat that their children will die of starvation. ‎

Afghanistan's embassy in Dushanbe has demanded an explanation for the decision ‎from the Tajik Foreign Ministry, the channel said.‎

Albanian parliament approves dispatch of peacekeepers to Afghanistan

Text of report in English by Albanian news agency ATA

Tirana, 7 June: The Assembly approved on Thursday (7 June) with 91 votes in ‎favour and one abstention the bill "for sending of a military force to ‎Afghanistan in the framework of international coalition against terrorism".‎

Sending Albanian company in Afghanistan is linked with the objectives of our ‎country to be part of alliance and increase the Armed Forces contribution to ‎the NATO led-operations', being a part of the most important mission that NATO ‎is heading (ISAF), which is assessed by body countries.‎

Sarkozy says French troops to stay in Afghanistan

Fri 8 Jun 2007 - HEILIGENDAMM, Germany, (Reuters) - French President Nicolas ‎Sarkozy said on Friday France would not pull its troops out of Afghanistan for ‎now, echoing comments by his prime minister that there was no plan to withdraw ‎forces. Speculation that France may cut down on its engagement in Afghanistan grew ‎shortly after Sarkozy was elected last month, when he said he saw no long-term ‎role for French troops there.Prime Minister Francois Fillon said on Tuesday there was no plan to disengage ‎from the country, and at an annual meeting of the Group of Eight industrialised ‎nations in Germany, Sarkozy said France would stay by its allies' side.

‎"I told our Canadian and American friends and our allies that we will not break ‎the allies' solidarity in the battle that is under way against terrorism in ‎Afghanistan and that is under way to stabilise the Afghan state," Sarkozy told ‎reporters. "Secondly, we will reinforce our means to train the Afghan army," he told a ‎news conference. Sarkozy's spokesman David Martinon said the number of French troops would be ‎increased by 150, or three groups of 50 soldiers to train Afghan forces.

‎"I wanted France's effort to be more of a training effort to prepare the Afghan ‎state for the transition," Sarkozy said. The troop increase will bring the ‎number of French troops in Afghanistan to 1,150.‎

MacKay admits 6 Afghan abuse allegations exist ‎

June 09, 2007 - BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH, OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA–Six prisoners have complained to Canadian officials of abuse in Afghan ‎prisons – not four, as Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and Public Safety ‎Minister Stockwell Day said earlier this week.‎

The revelation, confirmed yesterday, marks another blow for the Tories on a ‎sensitive issue they've been accused of mishandling. And the mix-up gave ‎further fuel to opposition critics who say the government isn't taking the ‎issue of human rights seriously.‎

‎"We've never been able to get a straight answer. The government has not taken ‎human rights seriously. They've not been diligent at all on this matter," said ‎New Democrat MP Dawn Black (New Westminster-Coquitlam).‎

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South) said it appears "nobody is in ‎charge" of the file within government circles. "Whenever a story breaks out, ‎they don't have their facts straight," he said.‎

The confusion was sparked earlier this week when Day told a Commons committee ‎the government has received four allegations of possible abuse since February.‎

However, in late April, Day said Canadian officials had heard two first-hand ‎allegations from prisoners captured by Canadian troops who complained of abuse ‎after being transferred into Afghan custody.‎

Day refused to clarify the matter at the committee meeting, leaving MacKay, who ‎was appearing with him, to field the questions.‎

‎"There are, in fact, four allegations. Those allegations ... have been brought ‎to our attention," MacKay said. He repeated the statement in French, saying ‎that one complaint was made in Kandahar and three in Kabul.‎

That was later confirmed by a MacKay spokesperson, who told the Star in an ‎email that there were two new cases of possible abuse.‎

In fact, there have been six reports of abuse – four since Canada signed a new ‎prisoner transfer agreement with Afghan authorities on May 3, said France ‎Bureau, a Foreign Affairs spokesperson. Three complaints originated in Kabul ‎and three in Kandahar, she said.‎

Conservatives Face New Criticism Over Revised Number Of Claims Of ‎Afghan Prisoner Abuse

‎ June 9, 2007 - Valerie Chang - AHN News Writer‎

Ottawa, ON (AHN) - Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and Public Safety ‎Minister Stockwell Day said, earlier in the week, that there were four reported ‎cases in which persons suspected of being Taliban fighters who were captured by ‎Canadians and turned over to the Afghan government were abused. Roughly two ‎days later, McKay said there were actually six cases of abuse. As a result, ‎Liberal and MDP critics have renewed their cries of Conservative government ‎‎"confusion" and "cover-up." ‎

After learning of McKay's upward revision in the number of cases of alleged ‎torture, Liberal critic Ujjal Dosanjh said, "[t]here is obviously a lot of ‎confusion on the detainees issue, with each of these three ministers - Defense, ‎Foreign Affairs and Public Safety - saying different and contradictory things ‎at different times."‎

On a similar note, NDP critic Dawn Black said, "[s]ince I started asking ‎questions about the treatment of detainees more than a year ago, we have heard ‎nothing but contradictions, fabrications and cover-up from this government."‎

The new criticism of the Conservative government follows earlier attacks by ‎opposition parties over media reports that several persons - up to 33 ‎prisoners, by some reports - who were captured by Canadians and transferred to ‎Afghan authorities have been tortured.‎

When the Canadian military captures suspected Taliban fighters, they are ‎generally turned over to Afghan authorities and taken to Kabul for ‎interrogation. ‎

Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association ‎‎(BCCLA) have asked a federal court to stop the transfers. The groups are ‎concerned that prisoners face the prospect of torture when transferred to ‎Afghan authorities. Shirley Heafey, who is a Board member with the BCCLA, said, ‎‎"[t]he rule of law in Afghanistan is absent and with the transfer of prisoners ‎to Afghan authorities, the Canadian forces become complicit in a process than ‎can lead to torture."‎

Editorial - Afghanistan dodge‎

Mon Jun 11 2007 – Winnipeg Free Press‎

ACCORDING to opinion polls, Canadians are divided about what role their country ‎should play in Afghanistan, now and in the future. Equally divided are their ‎two pre-eminent political parties. Prime Minister Stephen Harper's ‎Conservatives are committed to maintaining a combat role for Canadian troops in ‎the Afghan war at least until February 2009. Opposition leader Stéphane Dion's ‎Liberals, in contrast, are committed to ending the combat role there by ‎February 2009 at the latest. The difference may not seem remarkable. Both ‎policies would see Canadians fighting for almost two more years in Afghanistan, ‎but the differences in attitude and approach that they reveal are instructive. ‎

The Conservative commitment to the war has been fairly steady, reflecting the ‎government's strongly held belief that Canada's role in the world changed ‎dramatically after the events of 9/11, that the traditional functions of ‎peacekeeping, even the more aggressive role of peacemaking, are increasingly ‎irrelevant in a war on terror that can only be fought by combat troops. It is ‎not carved in stone, but it has a consistency to it. ‎

Under Mr. Dion's leadership, the Liberal commitment to the war has shifted as ‎often as the sands in the Afghan desert -- cynics might argue that the party's ‎policy shifts as often as the polls of the Canadian public. It was Mr. Dion's ‎predecessor as Liberal leader, former prime minister Paul Martin, who first ‎sent Canadian soldiers off to fight in the Afghan war, but Liberals have never ‎been comfortable with that. They have on several occasions, sought to have the ‎soldiers' role switched to support operations in the safer parts of ‎Afghanistan; they have tried to force the government to commit to a firm ‎withdrawal -- the Tories call it a cut-and-run -- in 2009. The only consistency ‎here appears to be a Liberal reluctance to join Canada's allies, particularly ‎the Americans, in active combat situations. ‎

Last week, Mr. Dion added another nuance to his Afghan policy. A Liberal ‎government, he said, would end Canada's combat role by 2009, but it might leave ‎troops there to take part in reconstruction projects in areas where there was ‎no danger of fighting. This is a finely nuanced position that would allow the ‎Canadian military in Afghanistan to cut without actually running. It might ‎prove popular with the NDP and Bloc Québécois, and among Canadians uncertain ‎about their attitude to the war, but in contrast to the Conservative position, ‎it offers the nation not even a glimpse, let alone a vision, of what Canada's ‎role in the world should be.‎

House's Afghan aid bill sends a message to Bush ‎

The San Francisco Chronicle - 06/07/2007
By Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau

‎ ‎406-10 vote urges focus on nation that harbored bin Laden

‎ Washington - It wasn't as confrontational as the fierce three-month fight over ‎Iraq war funding, but House Democrats quietly sent President Bush another anti-‎Iraq war salvo Wednesday by telling him they want his administration to focus ‎on stabilizing Afghanistan, rather than fighting in a civil war in Iraq. The $6.4 billion measure, sponsored by Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, sailed ‎through the House on a 406-10 vote. Its call for more reconstruction aid, ‎protection of women's rights, for Bush to appoint an Afghan reconstruction czar ‎and step up opium poppy suppression and crop substitution was something that ‎few members, Republican or Democrat, could oppose.

‎ Republicans who support Bush's war policy disagree with Democrats who say ‎Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was a diversion from the real war ‎against America's terrorist enemies in Afghanistan. But they agree that the ‎Afghan war, in which more than 300 Americans have been killed, remains vital in ‎the effort to combat terrorist groups.Many Democrats said the bill was designed to send Bush a message about how the ‎Iraq war has diverted resources from Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden may ‎still be hiding. They argue that the war against the resurgent Taliban and its ‎al Qaeda allies should not be a backwater in global anti-terrorism efforts.

‎ The legislation came to the floor after the three-month fight over the ‎Democratic Congress' efforts to force a troop withdrawal from Iraq. Democrats ‎pledge to renew that effort in July and September, when Congress considers the ‎Pentagon budget for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 and the next special Iraq ‎war spending bill proposed by the White House. "For too long, Afghanistan has been the forgotten war. Opportunities have been ‎lost,'' said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., who chairs the House Armed Services ‎Committee.

‎ ‎"This bill is doing what we could and should do in Iraq,'' said Rep. Lynn ‎Woolsey, D-Petaluma, a leader of the House Out of Iraq Caucus, "build a true ‎path to peace.'' "We can learn from this bill,'' added Woolsey, drawing a parallel to Iraq. ‎‎"Peace and stability come from partnerships, not from guns and bombs.''

‎ Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, criticized Bush for "subcontracting'' the ‎Afghanistan war to NATO forces while the United States concentrated on Iraq for ‎more than four years. "We still don't have Osama bin Laden, and the situation is deteriorating in ‎Pakistan. It is deteriorating because the administration's attention span is ‎that of a gnat,'' she said.

‎ The legislation, which is a reauthorization of a 2002 Afghan aid bill written ‎after the United States invaded the country in late 2001 to oust the Taliban ‎regime and al Qaeda, authorizes $1.6 billion annually over three years for ‎reconstruction, opium eradication and crop substitution programs to wean ‎farmers away from growing the opium that is refined into heroin and funds ‎today's Taliban.

‎ It also calls for stepped up anti-corruption efforts in cooperation with the ‎American and NATO-backed government of President Hamid Karzai and says Bush ‎should appoint a top official to work across the federal bureaucracy to ‎coordinate aid and the anti-narcotics efforts.

‎ The White House said Bush opposes the idea of a coordinator and also a ‎provision requiring him to certify that no senior Afghan provincial or local ‎leaders are engaged in corruption. But Bush has stopped short of issuing a veto ‎threat, and the legislation hasn't yet been scheduled in the Senate. Lantos, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, warned that the United ‎States should not take its eye off Afghanistan, where there are about 20,000 ‎American military personnel. NATO has about 22,000 non-American forces in the ‎country.

‎ ‎"Afghanistan is a brushfire that could easily ignite an all-out ‎conflagration,'' he warned. Republicans never mentioned Iraq but agreed the ‎Afghan war is vital. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., ranking Republican on Lantos' committee, said ‎support for Karzai's regime is essential to "deny al Qaeda a base for its ‎global war of terror and destruction against our nation and its interests ‎worldwide.''

‎ Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, said, "The Taliban, those demons in the desert, are ‎getting rich off opium. ... All the profits from the drug trade line the ‎pockets of our enemy the Taliban and choke the life out of our friends, the ‎Afghan government.''

‎ Lantos said the lack of rancor as the House debated the Afghan aid bill offered ‎an example for Congress, one that seems unlikely to be repeated as it takes up ‎renewed funding for the Iraq war in July and September.

‎"It's such a pleasure to manage a major bill on international affairs on a ‎bipartisan basis. Our nation wins when it is united,'' he said. ‎

‎ 'US at fault for rising Afghan poppy crop'

‎10 Jun, 2007 l 0208 hrs IST‎ l Pradeep Thakur/TIMES NEWS NETWORK

‎ NEW DELHI: If drug trafficking and drug abuse in India register a multi-fold ‎increase, blame it on the US. A recent study conducted by a Paris-based ‎security organisation has faulted the US for a spurt in opium poppy cultivation ‎in Afghanistan and held its policies responsible for the swelling insurgent ‎ranks. The study, conducted by security think tank Senlis Council, has noted that in ‎its bid to eradicate poppy cultivation, the US has forced a sizeable population ‎to starvation. While large tracts of land under poppy cultivation have been ‎destroyed by the US, no alternate means of livelihood have been provided to the ‎Afghans.

‎ This has driven the poverty-stricken population to the Taliban, which offers up ‎to $12 a day when many of them don't even have enough to provide for medicines ‎and food for their family. For Afghan youths, joining the Taliban is much more ‎lucrative compared to a job with the security forces. A soldier in the Afghan ‎army draws less than $2 a day.The swelling of the insurgent ranks and an increase in opium cultivation in ‎Afghanistan has its direct impact on India, which is considered a fertile ‎ground for keeping alive the global campaign for jehad and is also used as a ‎transit point for smuggling Afghan brand of heroin.

‎ The report says US policy is responsible for the dramatic loss of support for ‎the Hamid Karzai government. It warns that if western policies are not ‎corrected immediately, the entire country will soon be under the spell of ‎Taliban rule.

‎ Drug syndicates take the Taliban's help to protect the illicit trade and in ‎return fund and help the insurgents by supplying their jehadis across the world ‎with weapons, ammunition and other logistics using their global network.Instead of eradication of poppy cultivation which fetches up to $5,000 per ‎hectare, the Senlis Council has suggested legitimising the crop and procuring ‎the entire produce to be used by the pharmaceutical industry as done by ‎countries like France, India, Australia and UK.

‎ ‎"A licensing system could offer a legal income to many Afghans currently ‎involved in the illegal drug trade," the report says while suggesting that this ‎would prevent the poor population falling in the Taliban trap which imposes ‎levies on opium and heroin production and profit from narcotics sale in the ‎drug market.

‎ ‎"Opium licensing will also contribute to the creation of rule of law in ‎Afghanistan because it is in itself a system of control. Our research has shown ‎that crop eradication is fuelling the insurgency because it creates ‎disillusionment within the local population," the report says. ‎

The Winnable War ‎

American Spectator, 06/07/2007 By American Spectator

‎ ‎"This war is winnable." I can't say how often during my recent embed in the ‎southern Afghanistan Province of Zabul, just north and east of Kandahar, I ‎heard officers and noncoms say that. Implicit is that it's also losable; but ‎what they really mean is winnable in comparison to Iraq.

‎ Strange but true that Afghanistan -- with four major ethnic groups, two ‎official languages, and almost countless lesser languages -- is far more of a ‎proud, united nation than Iraq. They have Sunni and Shia, but their differences ‎are just an excuse for a chat over chai tea. Further, while it's way too early ‎to say if the Iraqi "surge" is working, the much-anticipated massive Taliban ‎spring offensive in Afghanistan has thus far proved more

‎ a trickle than a deluge. Still, as I note in my article "The Other War" in the ‎June 11 Weekly Standard, it would be a mistake to assume time is on our side. ‎Afghans seem to be losing patience with the war effort, and while that may not ‎help the Taliban (over 90 percent of Afghans dislike them), it can certainly ‎hinder President Hamid Karzai in his efforts to keep the warlords at bay. It's ‎warlords, not sectarianism, that pose the internal threat.

‎ The most threatening is General Abdul Rashid Dostum, a major Northern Alliance ‎leader against the Taliban. But before that, he fought on the side of the ‎Soviets and the Communist government. Probably to undercut the government, ‎which has essentially excluded him, he (announced in May that he can raise an ‎army and drive out the Taliban in six months.

‎ Further, despite major setbacks this year, including the May 13 killing of ‎Mullah Dadullah, a butcher frequently called "the military mastermind of the ‎Taliban insurgency" whose headquarters were in Zabul, there have been ‎increasing calls for negotiating with "moderate Taliban." This includes the ‎Afghan senate itself , which has grown weary of the Taliban tactic of hiding ‎their forces among civilians to cause the deaths of innocents from U.S. and ‎NATO fire. Yet the enemy itself insists "moderate Taliban" is oxymoronic.

‎ I've only visited parts of Iraq on three occasions and part of Afghanistan, but ‎I've seen enough to know that while the Iraq effort is awash with money but ‎lacking in men, the war in Afghanistan is being fought on a shoestring in terms ‎of both. There will be about 155,000 U.S. troops in Iraq when the buildup is ‎complete, but there are only about 27,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a country ‎larger in both geography and population.

‎ A massive concrete blast wall in Iraq is a mere mud wall in Afghanistan. "It ‎takes four weeks here just to get cement," 1st. Lt. Keith Wei, executive ‎officer of the American unit with which I was embedded, told me. "We need to ‎help build and to provide security, but we just don't have the funds. Everybody ‎here understands what needs to be done but their hands are tied by a lack of ‎resources in both funds and people. We could pacify Zabul in probably a year if ‎they pumped money into here like they do Iraq."

‎ Yet together, both wars plus all other defense spending consume about 3.8 ‎percent of gross domestic product, or just over a third of the GDP percentage ‎spent at the height of the Vietnam War. Total U.S. forces currently in both ‎Iraq and Afghanistan amount to just a third of the 540,000 employed for the ‎limited purpose of driving Saddam's forces out of Kuwait in 1991.

‎ Still, that might not be a problem in Afghanistan if NATO nations didn't refuse ‎to pull their weight -- in total personnel contributed, combat soldiers, or ‎defense expenditures. Only six of 37 NATO countries with troops in Afghanistan ‎will even allow them to fight, namely the U.S.; the U.K.; Canada; the ‎Netherlands; Romania; and tiny Estonia. Only six spend as much as 2 percent of ‎their GDP on defense. Even as they refer to America as a bellicose "cowboy" ‎nation, they sit back and let us and a handful of other countries expend the ‎money and blood.

‎ ‎"You can see victory on the horizon," says Wei. "We just don't have the means ‎to get there." Michael Fumento has been embedded three times in Iraq's al Anbar ‎Province and once with U.S. and Romanian forces in Afghanistan.‎

UNMACA, Ministry of Public Health and Ministry of Education have signed ‎a Memorandum of Understanding for victim assistance and mine risk ‎education activities

Source: United Nations Mine Action Centre for Afghanistan (UNMACA)‎

Kabul: June 11th, 2007. On June 9th, the United Nations Mine Action Center ‎‎(UNMACA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Ministry of Public ‎Health (MoPH) and Ministry of Education (MoEd). ‎

To ensure that Afghanistan fulfils its obligation of the Ottawa Convention (1), ‎UNMACA is working with the Government towards national ownership and ‎implementation of victim assistance and mine risk education programme ‎activities. ‎

The agreement with Ministry of Public Health was signed in support to the ‎integration of disabilities issues into public health services. A Disability ‎Unit has been established within the Ministry for the implementation and ‎incorporation of health and physical rehabilitation services for persons with ‎disabilities including landmine survivors. ‎

In accordance to the second agreement, UNMACA will support the Ministry of ‎Education to develop and implement an awareness raising strategy for the ‎reduction of the risk of landmines within schools and communities. Technical ‎assistance will be provided to MoEd for the implementation of mine risk ‎education and victim assistance through prevention, advocacy and awareness ‎raising activities that will provide risk education information to communities ‎and in particular among children, encouraging safe behaviours and promoting ‎inclusive education for children with disabilities. ‎

Victim/Disability Assistance and Mine Risk Education programming in Afghanistan ‎have embraced methodologies for prevention, advocacy and awareness raising ‎activities that will ensure risk reduction within communities, inclusive ‎programme opportunities and equal rights for all people with disabilities. With ‎specific goals of: ‎

‎- Prevention: lessen preventable disabilities through education, public health ‎and safety mechanism and mass communications in particular Mine Risk Education. ‎

‎- Awareness Raising: raise awareness with regards to disability and the ‎challenges faced by people with disability including the barriers to inclusion ‎and participation in all sectors of Afghan society. ‎

‎- Advocacy: advocate for rights based and inclusive programme development and ‎implementation through national policy development, legislation, and technical ‎assistance. ‎

UNMACA will support the Ministries and the Disability Unit through technical ‎assistance to implement prevention, awareness and advocacy initiatives ‎throughout the country. ‎

The United Nations Mine Action Center for Afghanistan (UNMACA) has been ‎coordinating the Mine Action Programme for Afghanistan (MAPA) activities’ such ‎as survey, mine clearance, battlefield clearance, mine awareness, and ‎supporting mine victims throughout the country since 1989. The programme has ‎cleared more than one billion square meters area, destroyed more than 323,000 ‎anti personnel, 18,500 antitank mines and more than seven million pieces of ‎unexploded ordnance. Afghanistan became a State Party to the Ottawa Convention ‎in March 2003 and committed to clearing all minefields in the country by 2013. ‎

Note to the press release ‎

‎(1) Afghanistan became the 126th member of the Ottawa Convention or Convention ‎on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-‎Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction in March 2003. Becoming a State Party, ‎Afghanistan has committed to: ‎

‎- Clearing all known minefields in Afghanistan by 2013; ‎

‎- Destroying all known stockpiled anti-personnel mines in Afghanistan by 2007; ‎

‎- Providing mine risk education to the Afghan people; and ‎

‎- Assisting those who have been injured by mines and UXO. ‎

The west has to accept that there is no military solution ‎

The Guardian - 06/07/2006 - By Jonathan Steele in Kabul

‎ The honest way forward in Afghanistan is to understand the south is lost and ‎refocus efforts on Kabul and the north

‎ The team that wrote President Bush's Prague speech on democracy this week have ‎clearly never visited Afghanistan. Otherwise they would not have had the ‎president quoting a Soviet dissident who compared "a tyrannical state to a ‎soldier who constantly points a gun at his enemy". The guns that most Afghans ‎see pointed at them are held by Americans, and they are all too often fired. At ‎least 135 unarmed civilians have been reported killed over the past two months ‎by western troops, mainly US special forces.

‎ The deaths by ground fire and US air strikes have become so frequent that last ‎month the upper house of Afghanistan's parliament did something it has never ‎done before. It called on the Nato-led forces to cease taking offensive action ‎against the Taliban and asked the Afghan government to talk to the insurgents, ‎provided the Taliban accept the country's new constitution. It also asked for a ‎timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops. The upper house is not normally ‎a radical body. More than half its members were appointed by Bush's friend, ‎President Hamid Karzai. Its speaker is a moderate former mujahideen leader who ‎was driven from power by the Taliban a decade ago. That men with this ‎background should now be expressing doubts over Nato's tactics and even over ‎its presence in Afghanistan sends a powerful signal.‎

Five years after western forces arrived here, the upper house's concern ‎reflects an impatience with them that is widespread in Kabul. Initially the ‎International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) was considered too passive. The ‎demand was for it to deploy out of Kabul to the non-Pashtun north and west, and ‎arrest or disarm the warlords. Although these were anti-Taliban figures, they ‎ran their areas like fiefdoms, neglecting development and stealing revenues.

‎ After a two-year delay Isaf did move out, and now runs so-called provincial ‎reconstruction teams in most provinces. It still leaves the warlords alone, ‎since confronting them is considered the Afghan government's job. Some have ‎been sidelined by Karzai, but given good jobs in Kabul. Others were elected to ‎parliament, after attempts to ban militia leaders from being candidates were ‎dropped. None has been put on trial - a cult of impunity that also benefits a ‎new generation of corrupt officials.

‎ In the Pashtun south, the Taliban's homeland, the west did little. Instead of ‎pumping in aid while the defeated Taliban were still demoralised, the Taliban ‎were given three years to recover. Now that Isaf has finally gone into the ‎south, the complaint is that it is too aggressive. Isaf troops demolish houses, ‎empty out villages, displace tens of thousands of people, and use ‎indiscriminate firepower that kills innocent civilians. Isaf's task is ‎complicated by the presence of over 10,000 US troops who are not under Nato ‎command but operate in the same zones, killing more Afghans than Isaf, and ‎giving all foreign forces a bad name since no one can understand the ‎difference.

‎ Making a priority of "force protection" - which means that soldiers on patrol ‎or in convoy treat every Afghan as a potential enemy and fire on anything ‎suspicious - has helped the Taliban to gain recruits. Before 9/11 the ‎connection between the Taliban and al-Qaida was only at the leadership level, ‎and tenuous at best. Now it is pervasive and at the grassroots. Young Afghans ‎are strapping on suicide belts, a technique imported from Iraq - it was never ‎used against the Soviet occupiers two decades ago, and shocks older Afghans as ‎a perversion of their warrior nation's traditions. But it helps to make Isaf ‎and US special forces even more jittery, feeding into the instinct to over-‎react.

Last autumn, British commanders tried to break out of excessive reliance on ‎military force. They made a potentially precedent-setting deal with tribal ‎leaders in the town of Musa Qala by agreeing to withdraw provided the Taliban ‎did not move in. The deal was sabotaged by the Americans and, as on many ‎earlier occasions, Tony Blair failed to stand up to the White House. He let the ‎Musa Qala experiment fizzle out.

‎ In Kabul, some western analysts with long experience of Afghanistan are in ‎despair. They argue that Isaf should recognise the trap it is in. Western ‎governments and their electorates will never provide enough troops to secure ‎the south, but the reckless use of air-power to make up for the shortage of ‎ground troops only loses more hearts and minds. The downward spiral of anger ‎and alienation accelerates.

‎ The only honest solution is to accept that the south is a lost cause as far as ‎western military action is concerned. Isaf should refocus its effort and the ‎available foreign aid money on Kabul and the north. Turn them into an example ‎of how development and modernisation can be done gradually and sensitively and ‎with a real long-term commitment, rather than spending millions on advice on ‎‎"good governance" from overpaid consultants on short-term contracts. There is ‎no danger that the Pashtun-based Taliban will capture Kabul and the north ‎again. Isaf need not announce a pullout, but it should prepare the ground by ‎redeploying its forces to garrisons in Kandahar and the provincial capitals in ‎the south, and quietly abandoning its isolated outposts and the futile in-and-‎out patrolling of the hinterland.

‎ Some diplomats argue that, while this may be what the west eventually does, ‎there is still time to use a mix of military attacks in a few areas combined ‎with discreet contacts with Taliban commanders through tribal leaders. These ‎should aim for agreement on phased withdrawals by Isaf, and promises that ‎security will be in the hands of Afghan police chosen by local people rather ‎than sent in from outside. The Afghan army is seen as an adjunct of the ‎occupiers and not welcomed.

‎ Pashtun tribal elders reject Taliban ideology, which they see as obscurantist, ‎regressive, and hostile to development. They had six years' experience of it ‎after 1995, and know what it means. But the Taliban are successfully expanding ‎their reach by exploiting national pride and hostility to foreign occupation ‎and the corrupt practices of Kabul-appointed governors. Removing the occupation ‎and having locally chosen police would allow the elders to reassert control.

‎ A key precondition for a new approach in Afghanistan has to be an end to the ‎west's simplistic "war on terror" rhetoric and its latest incarnation, Bush's ‎Prague talk of "freedom versus extremism". Promising "victory" in Afghanistan ‎only risks the perception of "defeat" when the reality eventually dawns that ‎there is no military solution.‎

Flashpoint: Peril in Pakistan

Mountainous border with Afghanistan provides haven for the Taliban. By Peter ‎Brookes

Pakistan is one of the most dangerous countries for the U.S. Government to deal ‎with in our struggle against global terror. FSM Contributing Editor Peter ‎Brookes, an expert in geopolitics, carefully explains the plethora of lethal ‎dangers facing America from this area.‎

In the global struggle against Islamic extremism and terrorism, Pakistan may be ‎the most important country most Americans don't know is important. That state ‎of blissful ignorance had better change — and soon. ‎

Pakistan, a teeming country of 165 million, is quickly becoming one of the ‎world's most dangerous terrorist havens. Regrettably, a resurgent Taliban and a ‎new generation of al-Qaida have found the welcome mat out and the light on in ‎Pakistan's lawless tribal areas. ‎

Dealing with this double trouble in a country where the Taliban and al-Qaida ‎are often among kith, kin and kindred spirits makes successfully managing ‎relations with Islamabad one of Washington's most critical foreign policy and ‎security challenges. ‎

The Pakistani government's truce with pro-Taliban tribesmen in several ‎districts of the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA) along the ‎Afghanistan border may be good for Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's ‎political health, but it's hurting Afghanistan — where the fight with the ‎Taliban is definitely on. For instance, since Islamabad reached a peace pact ‎with tribal leaders in North Waziristan in September, Taliban cross-border ‎attacks into Afghanistan quickly increased a phenomenal 300 percent, according ‎to the U.S. military. Sheer coincidence? Not a chance. ‎

Musharraf said the deals would quiet the restive Pashtun tribal areas, even ‎expel foreign extremists from the area, and stop Taliban cross-border raids ‎into Afghanistan. Equally important, the agreements also were meant to reduce ‎the pressure on his government from the two most powerful institutions in ‎Pakistan: the military and the mosque. ‎

The Pakistani army has lost 500 to 700 soldiers in the tribal areas since 2004 ‎because of shortfalls in both capability and competence. Musharraf, who led the ‎army before taking power in a 1999 coup d'etat, still holds the title general ‎and is sympathetic to military opinion about army losses. ‎

Musharraf is riding a tiger of religious fervor, as well. Some powerful Muslim ‎clerics and religious-based political parties pushed hard to end what they saw ‎as the army's pro-American, anti-Pashtun, Pakistani-on-Pakistani violence in ‎the FATA. Although most Pakistanis don't support an extremist agenda, Musharraf ‎cannot ignore the Islamists, many of whom have links and influence with the ‎military. ‎

Although there has been some joint Pakistani-tribal military action in recent ‎months against Uzbek and Chechen jihadists, it's not good news on the anti-‎Taliban front. With the support of the local Pashtun tribal leaders (the ‎Taliban are also ethnically Pashtun), Taliban fighters are able to find ‎sanctuary in the FATA for logistics support, planning, training and operating ‎across the border in Afghanistan against coalition (U.S., NATO, Afghan and ‎other) forces. ‎

Taliban fighters also head across the Hindu Kush mountains to Pakistan to rest ‎and regroup out of the killing zone over the harsh winter before coming back in ‎a spring offensive. That's exactly what we're experiencing now in Afghanistan. ‎It's a perfect haven: Pakistan's government is reluctant to take action against ‎the Taliban, and coalition forces across the border can't do so, either; it's ‎politically off-limits. ‎

The Taliban may also still be receiving support from the highly influential ‎Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate. The ISI played a key role in ‎creating the fundamentalist Taliban in the 1990s to start with — and may still ‎be a big backer, despite Islamabad's public protestations to the contrary. The ‎ISI saw the Taliban as the best way for Pakistan to influence its Afghan ‎neighbor following the Soviet withdrawal, to ensure Afghanistan wouldn't fall ‎into rival India's sphere of influence — or anyone else's that might lead to ‎claims on Pakistani territory. ‎

Cross-border finger-pointing and overheated rhetoric between Musharraf and ‎Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who have plenty of heart-felt antipathy for one ‎another, certainly doesn't encourage Islamabad to deal more strictly with the ‎Taliban, either. ‎

But numerous press accounts indicate that Pakistan security services may have ‎arrested Taliban leader Mullah Obaidullah Akhund in late March. If true, ‎Akhund, a deputy of Taliban chief Mullah Omar, would be the most senior Taliban ‎leader arrested by the Pakistanis, marking a watershed in Islamabad's ‎counterterrorism efforts. Arresting such a key figure in the Taliban movement ‎would signal that the Taliban is no longer safe in Pakistan. It would also help ‎to improve Pakistan-Afghanistan ties, which have deteriorated significantly ‎over the past year because of the upsurge of violence in Afghanistan. ‎

Lastly, such an arrest would help dispel doubts in the U.S. about Pakistan's ‎commitment to denying sanctuary to Taliban fighters, despite the reported ‎presence of 80,000 Pakistani troops in the FATA. ‎

A resurgent al-Qaida in Pakistan is another big problem. In fairness, Musharraf ‎has been helpful in fighting al-Qaida in Pakistan, killing or capturing as many ‎as 700 fighters since Sept. 11, 2001 — and turning over some 350 Taliban to the ‎U.S. for detention and interrogation, at least according to claims in ‎Musharraf's book, "In the Line of Fire." Even if Musharraf's numbers are ‎exaggerated, it is a fact that almost all senior al-Qaida leaders — including ‎Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al Shibh, Abu Zubaida and Abu Faraj al Libby ‎‎— captured since 9/11 have been nabbed in large Pakistani ‎cities. ‎

But despite this, we're seeing an uptick in al-Qaida activity out of Pakistan ‎in recent months. For example, late last year, Britain's domestic intelligence ‎service, the MI5, revealed that it has foiled five terror attacks since the ‎horrific "7/7" subway and bus bombings in London in ‎‎2005.‎

That's great news on the face of it. But MI5 is now tracking more than 20 ‎plots, involving as many as 200 terrorist cells, and watching more than 1,500 ‎people associated with them in the United Kingdom — most of whom are of ‎Pakistani origin. Of course, those are just the plots they know of. ‎

U.S. and British intelligence — among others — now believe al-Qaida is ‎regrouping in Pakistan's nearly autonomous tribal belt alongside the Taliban. ‎This puts the United Kingdom, because of its substantial South Asian ties — ‎‎800,000 Britons are of Pakistani origin — at significant risk of more ‎terrorism.‎

Indeed, four of the five would-be fertilizer bomb conspirators recently ‎sentenced in London are of Pakistani origin, as were two of the 7/7 suicide ‎bombers. Some of the men from both plots were trained in al-Qaida-associated ‎camps in Pakistan. Britons make 400,000 trips to Pakistan every year.‎

There has already been a close call of nightmarish proportions for the U.S. out ‎of this growing threat: Last summer's plan by homegrown, U.K.-based al-Qaida ‎acolytes to bring down 10 or so U.S.-bound airliners over the Atlantic using ‎liquid explosives had Pakistani ties. There was even talk among the ‎conspirators to destroy the airliners not over the Atlantic but, instead, over ‎major U.S. cities in an effort to kill as many people as possible, according to ‎British government sources. Here's how it works: Recruited by local imams, ‎British recruits head to Pakistan for indoctrination and training. Once ‎schooled in radicalism and terrorism, al-Qaida's new foot soldiers return home, ‎staying in touch with their Pakistani al-Qaida contacts, who either encourage ‎acts of terrorism — or order them.‎

MI5's then-director general, Eliza Manningham-Buller, summed it all up in a ‎November speech: "What we see at the extreme end of the spectrum are resilient ‎networks, some directed by al-Qaida in Pakistan, some more loosely inspired by ‎it, planning attacks including mass-casualty suicide attacks in the U.K." ‎Indeed, it's probably worse. Al-Qaida in Pakistan is not only living and ‎working alongside the Taliban, but it also has allied itself with other ‎indigenous Pakistani groups, including Kashmiri militants targeting India. ‎

But while intelligence, homeland security and law enforcement on both sides of ‎the Atlantic work tirelessly, U.S. and U.K. counterterrorism cooperation isn't ‎the entire solution to either the Taliban or al-Qaida problems. The answer lies ‎in Pakistan. ‎

The Bush administration's doing what can be done to shore up Pakistan's control ‎over the tribal belt and its Afghan border: helping equip the paramilitary ‎Frontier Corps; funding more than 100 new border outposts; providing high-tech ‎equipment, and fixed wing aircraft and helicopters for surveillance. ‎

Since 9/11, U.S. economic, development and security aid has exceeded $10 ‎billion. Understanding Pakistan's weak state status, Congress is considering as ‎much as $700 million in assistance this year. The White House even brought ‎together Musharraf and Karzai for some much-needed "relationship counseling" in ‎Washington to improve communication. Perhaps evidence of some progress, the two ‎leaders met in early May in Turkey for talks, reportedly on improving ‎intelligence cooperation. ‎

The question, unfortunately, has become unavoidable: Is Islamabad serious about ‎fighting extremism and terrorism? True, Pakistan has made invaluable ‎contributions to combating al-Qaida over the past five years, capturing key ‎leaders and providing tips that led to the foiling of deadly plots, including ‎last summer's attempted airline bombings out of the U.K. ‎

And, yes, Musharraf took a huge political risk in late October, giving the go-‎ahead to a Predator UAV missile strike against a compound thought to be hosting ‎Osama bin Laden's No. 2, Ayman al Zawahiri, missing him by just hours. In a ‎likely response to the Zawahiri attack, terrorists targeted a Pakistan army ‎base in November, killing more than 40 Pakistani soldiers. Plus, the Pakistani ‎army may well be working with tribal forces in the FATA along the Afghan border ‎to kill, capture or force out some entrenched foreign jihadists, as Islamabad ‎claims. But the facts on the ground indicate that tribal leaders are ignoring ‎their promises to Musharraf. Instead, they appear to be facilitating an ‎extremist resurgence in a Taliban mini-state. Indeed, bin Laden and Zawahiri ‎are believed to be hiding there today, according to U.S. intelligence. ‎

Musharraf is clearly on the horns of a dilemma. More actively moving against ‎the militants incurs the wrath of Pakistan's religious leaders, Islamic ‎political parties, army and Taliban supporters — groups Musharraf ignores at ‎his peril. Not acting is also problematic. Pakistan is a regular target of ‎Islamic terrorists, too. Musharraf has survived three assassination attempts. A ‎recent spate of attacks includes suicide bombings in Peshawar and Islamabad, ‎and a raid on a Pakistani military convoy. Suicide bombings are at an all-time ‎high this year. ‎

Of course, if we pressure Musharraf too hard, it could mean losing Pakistan ‎altogether in the terrorism fight. He's no perfect partner, but he's been an ‎ally against terrorism nonetheless. In war, sometimes the only bad ally is the ‎ally you don't have. ‎

Pakistan needs to do more, though. It needs to find the political will to fully ‎deny all terrorist groups, including Kashmiri militants, the use of its ‎territory. Pakistani military action in the tribal belt, even if not totally ‎effective, helps keep the pressure on al-Qaida and Taliban militants, hindering ‎their ability to plan and operate both in Pakistan and abroad. ‎

Otherwise, Pakistan, the world's second most populous Muslim country, risks ‎facing endless instability on its borders with both Afghanistan and India — not ‎to mention increasing isolation from the international community, which will ‎come to see it more as part of the problem than the solution. But as long as ‎Musharraf fails to act decisively, both Pakistan and the rest of the world will ‎likely pay a heavy price.‎

‎ ‎ FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing EditorPeter Brookes, a Senior Fellow ‎at The Heritage Foundation, served 20 years on active duty and in the reserves ‎with the U.S. Navy.11 - Story originally ran in the Armed Forces Journal.‎

etisalat to begin Afghan operations by July

Dubai: etisalat will launch its Afghanistan operations by the end of June, its ‎chief executive said yesterday, in a move that analysts say will only ‎marginally improve the UAE telco's bottom line.‎

Mohammad Al Qamzi, chief executive officer of etisalat, said the rollout of ‎service in war-ravaged Afghanistan would focus on low-tech voice and text ‎services, as compared with the ultra-fast 3.5G technology on offer in parts of ‎the UAE.

‎ ‎"etisalat Afghanistan offers mobile services with 2G and plans to introduce its ‎services in the first half of this year," Al Qamzi told Gulf News via an e-‎mailed statement. The announcement comes just days after the launch of etisalat ‎Misr, its mobile service in Egypt, which became Egypt's third mobile operator.

‎ Two weeks ago, etisalat also upped its stake in Atlantique Telecom from 50 per ‎cent to 70 per cent, which has mobile operations in seven central and west ‎African nations.‎

Walaa Hazem, a telecom analyst at HC Securities & Investment in Cairo, ‎predicted that revenues from etisalat's Afghanistan operations would only make ‎up one to two per cent of its overall operating income in three to four years.‎

‎"It's a very fragmented market and they are the fifth operator over there. We ‎are also speaking about a country with a very low GDP per capita," he said.

‎ ‎"Plus, Afghanistan comes with high political risk, as this is a country under ‎occupation where there are a lot of problems. It's not stable yet."‎

Compounding the political risk, the average revenue per user among ‎Afghanistan's 31 million residents is not more than $4 per month, Hazem said, ‎while GDP per person is around $400 per year.‎

However, since etisalat paid only $40 million for the licence - compared to its ‎‎$2.90 billion winning bid in Egypt - Hazem said etisalat's Afghanistan ‎prospects look good.

‎ ‎"etisalat will make money in the long run. It was a very cheap acquisition so ‎you can't blame them for taking it." ‎

[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.]