In this bulletin:

• Karzai angry over West's tactics
• Nato concedes Afghan shortfalls
• Embattled NATO admits more civilian deaths in anti-Taliban fight
• Italy urges NATO to stop killing civilians in Afghanistan
• Around 80 Taliban killed in Afghanistan
• Rockets kill nine in Pakistan
• Militants kidnap 18 NGO members in S. Afghanistan
• Protesters rally as soldiers march in Quebec City
• Protesters hold rally at parade to honour troops
• Troops won't stay unless all parties agree, PM says
• All roads leading to Pakistan
• Insecurity jeopardizing WFP initiatives in western Afghanistan
• Afghanistan through its own media
• AFGHANISTAN: Children share the brunt of casualties in conflict

Karzai angry over West's tactics

BBC News / Saturday, 23 June 2007

Nato and US-led troops are failing to co-ordinate with their Afghan allies and thereby causing civilian deaths, President Hamid Karzai has said. He criticised his Western allies' "extreme" use of force and said they should act as his government asked.

"Innocent people are becoming victims of reckless operations" because the troops had ignored Afghan advice for years, Mr Karzai told reporters. He was speaking after a week in which up to 90 Afghan civilians were killed.

More civilians have been killed this year as a result of foreign military action than have been killed by insurgents, correspondents say.

Mr Karzai was speaking a day after the head of Nato called for an investigation into an air strike in the Afghan province of Helmand in which 25 civilians were killed. The Afghan leader said foreign bombardment had also killed 62 civilians in the province of Uruzgan.

"You don't fight a terrorist by firing a field gun 37km (24 miles) away into a target. That's definitely, surely bound to cause civilian casualties," he said. The south of the country has seen the worst violence since the Taleban were ousted from power in 2001 by US-led troops.

Accusing international forces of consistently failing to co-ordinate with their Afghan colleagues, Mr Karzai said that, in future, every military operation should be co-ordinated directly with his government, in accordance with written plans he said already existed.

"As you are aware over the past several days, as result of indiscriminate and imprecise operations of Nato and coalition forces, our people suffered casualties," Mr Karzai told reporters in Kabul, looking visibly angry.

"We are thankful for their help to Afghanistan. But that does not mean that Afghan lives have no value. Afghan life is not cheap and it should not be treated as such," he said.

In a separate incident, rockets fired by coalition forces in Afghanistan killed at least nine Pakistani civilians, the Pakistan military said on Saturday. Coalition forces were fighting militants in Afghanistan close to the Pakistan border when a few rockets came across the frontier, hitting a house. Pakistan is demanding an explanation, a spokesman said.

Nato said about 60 militants in Afghanistan had been killed in the offensive. There are two international missions in Afghanistan: the Nato-led Isaf, with 37,000 troops from 37 countries including the US.

Its aim is to help the Afghan government bring security, development and better governance. The US-led coalition - under the banner of Operation Enduring Freedom - is a counter-terrorism mission that involves mainly special forces. Both have recently been involved in heavy clashes with insurgents.

Speaking in Quebec City, Canada, on Friday Nato's secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said no Nato, coalition or Afghan soldier would knowingly take aim at a civilian, and accused the Taleban of using civilians as human shields. "Each innocent civilian victim is one too many," he said. "Unfortunately it happens."

Nato concedes Afghan shortfalls

BBC News / Sunday, 24 June 2007 - Nato has said it needs to do better in its operations in Afghanistan, after coming under criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Mr Karzai accused Nato and US-led troops of failing to co-ordinate with their Afghan allies, thereby causing civilian deaths.

A Nato spokesman said Mr Karzai had a right to be "disappointed and angry" over the scale of civilian casualties. It came after a week in which up to 90 Afghan civilians were killed.

More civilians have been killed this year as a result of foreign military action than have been killed by insurgents, correspondents say.

Separately, rockets fired by coalition forces in Afghanistan killed at least nine Pakistani civilians, the Pakistan military said on Saturday.

Coalition forces were fighting militants in Afghanistan close to the Pakistan border when a few rockets came across the frontier, hitting a house.

Pakistan is demanding an explanation, a spokesman said. Nato said about 60 militants in Afghanistan had been killed in the offensive.

Mr Karzai said innocent people were becoming "victims of reckless operations" because foreign troops had ignored Afghan advice for years.

He was speaking a day after the head of Nato called for an investigation into an air strike in the Afghan province of Helmand in which 25 civilians were killed. The Afghan leader said foreign bombardment had also killed 62 civilians in the province of Uruzgan.

"You don't fight a terrorist by firing a field gun 37km (24 miles) away into a target. That's definitely, surely bound to cause civilian casualties," he said.

Accusing international forces of consistently failing to co-ordinate with their Afghan colleagues, Mr Karzai said that, in future, every military operation should be co-ordinated directly with his government, in accordance with written plans he said already existed.

"Afghan life is not cheap and it should not be treated as such," he said. Responding to Mr Karzai's comments, Nato spokesman Nick Lunt said the Afghan leader's anger was justified.

"President Karzai has a right to be disappointed and angry over the scale of civilians casualties in the last few days," Mr Lunt was quoted by the Associated Press news agency as saying.

"We need to do better than we have been doing so far. But unlike the Taleban, we do not set out to cause civilian casualties, and that is a critical difference," he said.

There are two international missions in Afghanistan. One is the Nato-led Isaf, with 37,000 troops from 37 countries, including the US.

Its aim is to help the Afghan government bring security, development and better governance. The other, a US-led coalition, is a counter-terrorism mission that involves mainly special forces. Both have recently been involved in heavy clashes with insurgents.

Embattled NATO admits more civilian deaths in anti-Taliban fight

June 24, 2007 - KABUL (AFP) - The NATO-led force in Afghanistan admitted Sunday to killing more civilians, this time in Pakistan, a day after harsh criticism from President Hamid Karzai about military operations.

A weapon fired by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) hit a building in Pakistan as warplanes were chasing down insurgents preparing to attack a base across the Afghan border Saturday, a spokesman said.

Residents said a child, a woman and seven men were killed. Pakistan military spokesman Major General Waheed Arshad said his government had protested and demanded an explanation. He said a rocket had struck the building.

"We have reports that one of our weapons hit a building which may have had a number of civilians in it and that building may have been a home or way-station or some hotel facility," ISAF spokesman Major John Thomas told AFP. "We regret the loss of innocent life," he said.

ISAF said earlier up to 60 militants were killed in the operation, which spanned the border in Afghanistan's southeastern Paktika province and Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal area.

In Kabul Saturday, Karzai accused ISAF and the separate US-led coalition of of causing civilian casualties in the battle against insurgents through "indiscriminate and unprecise" operations.

There was an "extreme use of force" and action was not being coordinated with Afghan forces despite repeated complaints over several years, the president said.

A NATO spokesman said the president's anger was understandable. "But let's make clear that no ISAF soldier intends to kill civilians," Nicholas Lunt said in Kabul. "That's not the case with Taliban. They deliberately kill civilians."

A district police chief told media Sunday that Taliban insurgents had kidnapped his 18-year-old son and beheaded him. Ghulam Wali, head of police in Helmand province's Sangin district, said he had pleaded in vain with the men to free his child, saying: "He's an innocent young boy and your enmity is with me not to him."

The insurgents kill by far the most civilians in the fighting in Afghanistan, often in suicide and roadside bombings aimed at the foreign and Afghan security forces.

The mounting civilian casualties by Afghan and foreign military forces -- said by a body of nongovernment groups to have reached nearly 250 this year -- is adding to disillusionment about post-Taliban Afghanistan.

There was meanwhile more fighting across the country with nearly 20 militants, four Afghan soldiers and three foreign troopers killed in the past day.

Two Estonian nationals with the 37-nation ISAF died in a rocket attack in Helmand, their country announced. A member of the US-dominated coalition was killed in the same province in fighting that also left an Afghan soldier and about a dozen rebels dead, the force said.

Three more Afghan soldiers died separate Taliban bombings, officials said. Six militants were killed in fighting Paktika, the defence ministry said. The interior ministry in Kabul meanwhile presented to media five Pakistani nationals "involved in destructive activities."

One, who gave his name only as Shoaib, said to reporters: "We were told by Taliban that Afghanistan has been invaded by Americans and we have to do jihad (holy war)."

The ultra-conservative Taliban took control of the Afghan government in 1996 in the chaos of a civil war.

They were toppled five years later by a US-led coalition that is still here tracking leaders of the movement and its allies in Al-Qaeda, who used Taliban-ruled Afghanistan as a sanctuary and training ground.

Italy urges NATO to stop killing civilians in Afghanistan

ROME, June 24 (RIA Novosti) - The Italian defense minister has demanded that NATO troops stop carelessly killing civilians in Afghanistan in the campaign against insurgent Taliban militants, an Italian paper said Sunday.

According to recent reports, more than 90 civilians were been killed by airstrikes and artillery fire targeting Taliban militants.

The La Stampa daily said Arturo Parisi, who is known as a strong supporter of the current Prime Minister Romano Prodi, sent a letter to NATO Headquarters in Brussels with demands that NATO troops show more restraint in Afghan operations.

"We, Italians, remain in Afghanistan, and this decision lays a heavy political burden on the ruling center-left coalition, but the Romano Prodi's Cabinet cannot tolerate mass killings of civilians in Afghanistan any longer," the minister said.

The recent casualties bring the number of civilians killed in NATO or U.S.-led military operations to 211 since the beginning of this year, according to figures provided by Afghan and foreign officials.

"It is not enough to conduct investigations [into the killings]. The names of people guilty of these atrocities must be revealed," Parisi said. "Someone has to be held responsible for the consequences [of the killings]."

There are some 2,000 Italian soldiers in Afghanistan deployed between Kabul and the western city of Herat. They are part of the 37,000-strong NATO-led force in the country.

Around 80 Taliban killed in Afghanistan

Sat Jun 23, 5:53 AM ET - KHOST, Afghanistan (AFP) - Foreign forces in Afghanistan said they had killed around 80 insurgents in the past 24 hours, most of them in a strike on rebels preparing an attack near the Pakistan border.

A group of 45 men and several smaller ones of eight to 10 were spotted just inside the border later Friday preparing to attack a base in the Paktika province, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said.

"They were clearly armed and they were clearly hostile and that is why they were engaged," ISAF spokesman Major John Thomas said.

ISAF forces conducted reconnaissance to confirm their suspicions and the insurgents fired on a US-led coalition aircraft, Thomas said.

Coalition forces then unleashed combined air and artillery strikes as the insurgents tried to escape across the border, he said. The operation was coordinated with Pakistan because the area is close to the border.

An ISAF spokesman for the east of the country, Major Donald Korpi, said "up to 60 Taliban were killed."

Thomas did not have a figure for the dead but did not dispute this toll, saying such numbers were arrived at through various battle damage assessments. Commanders in the area said it was the largest formation of militants there since January, Thomas added.

On January 11 air and ground strikes on insurgents spotted infiltrating into Afghanistan from Pakistan killed up to 150 of them, ISAF said at the time.

The Taliban's leadership is believed to have fled into Pakistan when the coalition drove them from power in 2001. The extremist movement and its Al-Qaeda allies are said to have training grounds just across the porous border.

The coalition reported separately that its soldiers working with Afghan troops had killed nearly 20 "enemy fighters" in a seven-hour battle late Friday in the southern province of Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban movement.

The attackers had initiated the battle by opening fire with machine guns, it said in a statement.

Several more fighters were killed in the adjoining province of Uruzgan when a battle erupted after troops were shot at with multiple rockets.

The coalition also announced it had detained 20 militants early Saturday in an operation against Al-Qaeda militants in Ghazni province.

At one compound fighters had fired rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns at the soldiers, who returned fire and killed the assailants, a statement said.

The Taliban's insurgency has steadily intensified since it was launched, despite the efforts of thousands of foreign troops helping the Afghan security forces.

The interior ministry announced that Afghan and foreign security forces had killed more than 1,500 insurgents in about 80 operations across Afghanistan since March. About 530 more, including 23 would-be suicide bombers, were captured, it said in a statement.

But insurgent attacks have also increased, with regular suicide and roadside bombings claimed by the militants that have killed scores of civilians.

In a new incident, a district governor said six Afghan civilians driving trucks supplying goods to foreign military bases were killed Friday by Taliban in the southern province of Helmand.

Insurgency-linked violence killed more than 4,400 Afghans last year, the bulk of them rebels but including about 1,000 civilians, according to Human Rights Watch.

Rockets kill nine in Pakistan

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, June 23 (UPI) -- A clash between coalition forces in Afghanistan and the Taliban killed nine civilians across the border in the North Waziristan tribal region of Pakistan.

Pakistani military officials confirmed the rocket strike and said they have filed a protest with leaders of the coalition forces, The New York Times reported Saturday.

The Pakistan-Afghanistan border has been considered a safe haven for Taliban and al-Qaida fighters despite Pakistan sending 90,000 troops into the region to quell the militant activity, the Times said.

Anti-American sentiment runs high along the border, where many residents are critical of Pakistan's alignment with the United States, the Times said.

In a separate development, at least three Pakistani paramilitary soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb Saturday. The soldiers were on patrol about 12 miles east of Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan, it was reported.

Militants kidnap 18 NGO members in S. Afghanistan

June 24, 2007 -(Kyodo) _ Eighteen members of an Afghan nongovernmental organization were abducted by militants in southern Afghanistan, the NGO said Sunday.

Shahab Hakimi, director of the Mine Detection and Dogs Center, said the group was taken at gunpoint in the Andar district of Ghanzni Province on Saturday along with their three sniffing dogs and three vehicles.

"Yesterday, while our team of de-miners was going to the de-mining site, militants stopped their convoy and abducted 14 de-miners, one doctor, and three drivers," Hakimi said, blaming the abduction on the Taliban.

He said the NGO's sub-office in Ghazni Province received a telephone call warning against government interference. The Taliban militants were not available to comment.

Protesters rally as soldiers march in Quebec City
Last Updated: Friday, June 22, 2007 - CBC News

As a parade of Canadian soldiers set to deploy to Afghanistan marched through the streets of Quebec City on Friday evening, anti-war activists rallied nearby, carrying drums, banners and even mock coffins.

The protesters, led by the War on War Coalition, said they are against Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan.

They chose to stage their event the same day as 2,500 soldiers from Quebec City's CFB Valcartier made a farewell march before beginning their deployment July 15 in the volatile Afghan region of Kandahar.

"We're not targeting the soldiers, we respect them as people," protest organizer Joseph Bergeron said. "But we are in total opposition with the Afghanistan mission and we want to show we represent the great part of the population that is opposed."

In Quebec, opposition is especially high, with a recent poll suggesting 70 per cent of people in the province don't agree with the mission.

On Wednesday, some members of the Parti Québécois refused to stand in honour of Quebec soldiers who were visiting the province's national assembly. Earlier this month, protesters sent letters to Valcartier soldiers, urging them to refuse their deployment.

With anti-war sentiment high, organizers of the military march worried that they might have to cancel their parade through Old Quebec.

"I know many in the community were a bit worried about [a cancellation], but for the military's part, we're proud of what we're doing," Maj. Bruno Vieille told CBC News before the parade, in which soldiers marched in full uniform.

Prior to the march, the soldiers were addressed by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and Quebec Premier Jean Charest. "You are the acting arm of Quebec pacifism," Charest said. "You are liberators." 

Afghan Ambassador Omar Samad also talked to the troops, stressing that the presence of the 26-nation NATO mission in his country is necessary to help it rebuild.

"I ask all Canadians, including those who may have doubts about this mission, to take a look at the alternative," he said. "For millions of women and children and men, there is no alternative."

The Quebec regiment from CFB Valcartier, known as "the fighting Vandoos" and "Le troupe de Quebec," will make up the bulk of Canada's military presence in Kandahar by late summer.

The chief of the NATO alliance in Afghanistan, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, met with the troops Friday afternoon. Earlier, he met with reporters.

"I believe that I can explain to Quebecers why it is important to be in Afghanistan and why it is important that Canada participates as it is doing now," he said.

"It is not a combat mission; it is a reconstruction mission, but to make [reconstruction] possible, we have to fight. It is as simple as that. NATO has to fight."

De Hoop Scheffer spoke with Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Ottawa on Thursday, and is appealing to the Canadian government to extend Canada's mission mandate beyond the February 2009 deadline when troops are scheduled to withdraw.

Sixty Canadian soldiers have been killed on duty since the mission began in 2002.

With files from the Canadian Press

Protesters hold rally at parade to honour troops

Updated Fri. Jun. 22 2007 11:27 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff

Activists holding coffins and wearing masks protested the Afghanistan mission on Friday, during a military parade in Quebec City to honour soldiers heading for the war-torn country.

Members of the War on War Coalition said they were criticizing the mission but not the troops, who were members of the Royal 22nd Regiment, popularly known as the Van Doos.

The soldiers, expecting the protest, tried to confuse the activists by marching in the opposite direction as the parade began. But the activists soon caught up.

"We want to tell people that we are against sending our troops to Afghanistan, because this war is unjustified," Mathilde Forest-Riviere, spokesperson for the War on War Coalition, told CTV Newsnet.

Canada's mission in Afghanistan is set to continue until February 2009.

But NDP Leader Jack Layton said Canada should stop aggressive military action in the war-torn country and move towards political negotiations.

"It's a war that clearly has no end in sight. It's not improving the lives of the people of Afghanistan -- in fact, what it's doing is building support for the Taliban," Layton told CTV's Mike Duffy Live on Friday.

"A whole new approach should be underway here, and Canada should be in the forefront of that approach, leading to a cease-fire and a comprehensive peace process."

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, speaking in Montreal after he reviewed an honour guard, said military operations are still crucial in Afghanistan.

"We are in combat because there are, unfortunately, still many people in Afghanistan who do not want to see reconstruction and development, but want to see that nation sliding back into the black hole where it was before 2001," he said.

De Hoop Scheffer has urged all 26 NATO allies to maintain their missions in the country beyond 2009.

Sixty military personnel and one diplomat have died in Afghanistan since Canada started military operations in 2002.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said troops still believe in the mission, despite the casualties, and rising criticism of the war in Quebec.

"The morale is very high, as the morale is very high in Afghanistan. The troops believe in what they're doing and they're all volunteers," O'Connor told Mike Duffy Live.

"Yes, every casualty affects the military in the sense that it's one of their brothers or sisters, but they carry on with the mission."

On Thursday, more than 2,000 soldiers from Quebec's CFB Valcartier, where the Van Doos are based, gathered in Montreal to hold a tailgate party and watch the Alouettes play against the Toronto Argonauts.

It was an attempt to raise support in the province, where a recent poll by Leger Marketing suggested 70 per cent of Quebecers oppose sending the Van Doos to Afghanistan.

The soldiers have also received about 3,000 letters urging them not to carry out their duties.

With a report from CTV Montreal's Jim Grant and files from The Canadian Press

Troops won't stay unless all parties agree, PM says

GLORIA GALLOWAY AND INGRID PERITZ - From Saturday's Globe and Mail

June 23, 2007 - OTTAWA, QUEBEC CITY — Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who once insisted that Canadian troops will stay in Afghanistan until the job is done, now says the military mission will end in February, 2009, unless the opposition agrees it should be extended.

The acceptance that the mission's lifespan may be limited comes as the Prime Minister faces growing opposition to Canada's combat role in the Afghan south – a decline in support that has been particularly pronounced in Quebec.

“This mission will end in February, 2009,” Mr. Harper said Friday at a rare House of Commons news conference held to mark the end of the spring sitting.

“Should Canada be involved militarily after that date, we have been clear that would have to be approved by the Canadian Parliament. From my personal perspective, I would want to see some degree of consensus around that. I don't want to send people into a mission if the opposition at home is going to undercut the dangerous work that they're doing in the field.”

Mr. Harper made the comment on the day Quebec-based troops gathered for a public send off in Quebec City amid planned protests and high levels of public opposition to the mission.

Some soldiers from Canadian Forces Base Valcartier near Quebec City said they regularly have to explain the purpose of their mission to friends and loved ones, who often confuse the Afghan mission with U.S.-led military operations in Iraq.

“Not many people are quite sure what we're doing there; it's far away, and I always have to explain it to them,” said Private Jonathan Poirier, 22, one of hundreds of troops in sand-coloured fatigues at the Quebec City Convention Centre. “But I'm living my dream, and I believe in what we're doing.”

Mr. Harper said he believes the opposition leaders, particularly Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, are open to some form of development role being played by Canada when the soldiers return home.

“I don't think they are suggesting, based on recent comments, that we would simply abandon Afghanistan in 2009,” he said, “so I hope that some time in the next few months we will be able to get a meeting of the minds on what the appropriate next steps are.”

A month ago in Afghanistan, Mr. Harper told members of the Canadian Forces that Canada “can't set arbitrary deadlines and hope for the best. … We can't just put down our weapons and hope for peace.”

And in September of last year, he said the only exit strategy from Afghanistan would be success. “There will be no other conditions under which this government leaves Afghanistan,” he said. “We will succeed in our security mission and we will see that country moving in irreversible progress to being an economically prosperous and peaceful society. That is the only way this government will leave.”

But, with the Canadian military death toll now at 60, support for the effort is waning. A poll conducted this month by Decima research suggested that two-thirds of Canadians wanted the troops to come home when the current mandate expires in February, 2009.

Opposition to the war is highest in Quebec. Anti-war groups threatened to mar a night-time parade of the 2,000 soldiers from the Royal 22nd Regiment, or Vandoos, who are shipping out to Kandahar beginning next month.

The war opponents say they aren't targeting soldiers personally, but insist the Afghan mission is being imposed on the province against Quebeckers' will.

“We respect the soldiers but we don't support them,” said Mathilde Forest-Rivière of the War on War coalition. “We don't support the deployment of troops to Afghanistan, and these soldiers aren't innocent.”

A ceremony at the convention centre to mark the troops' imminent departure brought together officials such as Mr. Dion, Roméo Dallaire, General Rick Hillier and Quebec Premier Jean Charest.

Afterward, in an apparent bid to thwart protesters, the army set off from the convention centre for the parade in the opposite direction of their announced route. Outside, they were greeted by cheers, not jeers, from hundreds of onlookers.

Thousands of well-wishers lined the parade route, applauding the troops as they marched past under police guard. But the soldiers were greeted at the end of the route around the convention centre by a swarm of protesters, some wearing masks, shouting anti-war slogans and urging the troops to desert.

Against this uneasy backdrop, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's top official travelled to Quebec City Friday and exhorted Quebec-based soldiers to recall the tradition and reputation of the fabled Vandoos as they head off to combat.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, standing before the Vandoos's red-coated honour guard in Quebec City's historic Citadel, told the soldiers they were fighting to preserve universal values.

“I can tell you it's a good cause, it's an essential cause,” he said in French. Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said he wanted to travel to Quebec and address Quebeckers “in their mother tongue” to drive home the importance of the mission.

“I think the participation of Canadians is essential,” he told a press conference, explaining that rebuilding the country without combat is impossible.

“Development and reconstruction in Afghanistan is not possible without the creation of a climate of security and stability,” he said. “So, unfortunately, we are fighting … we have to fight.”

Senior military staff in Quebec said the controversial night-time march through the streets of Quebec City, depicted by some as a public-relations manoeuvre, was intended to rally public support for the troops.

“It's important as they leave [for Afghanistan] that they know they have the city and the province of Quebec behind them,” said Brigadier-General Christian Barabé, commander of Land Force Quebec Area. “That way, when they suffer a tough blow, they'll know that people will be there with them and supporting the sacrifice they're making.”

Last night, Mr. Charest urged Quebeckers, as they celebrate their identity and pride this weekend for the St. Jean Baptiste national holiday, to recall how previous generations fought for freedom. The Premier noted it was the largest deployment of Quebec troops since the Korean War.

The Conservatives must pick up seats in Quebec if they are to win a majority government. And the negative feelings being expressed about the mission in that province could well intensify if members of the Royal 22nd Regiment sustain heavy casualties.

There is talk in Ottawa – in both Liberal and Conservative circles – that the mission's importance has not been adequately articulated. That would suggest that Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has not been doing an adequate job of communications and there is much speculation that he will be the victim of a cabinet shuffle, perhaps as early as next week.

Mr. Harper refused to answer questions about a possible shuffle Friday – but neither did he jump to the defence of Mr. O'Connor.

Mr. Dion, who held his own press conference after that of Mr. Harper, said the Prime Minister must be very clear to Canada's allies that the Canadians are leaving Afghanistan in February, 2009.

“After that, Canada has a role to play around the world,” Mr. Dion said. “You have many programs where we help other countries for their training – for the training for the police, for the military, for the justice. We may do that also in Afghanistan. But the combat mission in Kandahar, where the fights are at the south of Afghanistan, ends in February, 2009. It must be said now.”

All roads leading to Pakistan

By M K Bhadrakumar - Asia Times Online / June 23, 2007 - The British ambassador to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles, told British Broadcasting Corp radio in an interview this week that Britain needs to keep a presence in Afghanistan for several decades. He described Afghanistan as "one of our very highest foreign-policy priorities".

The ambassador singled out three main factors why a long-term British presence becomes unavoidable, namely the fight against terrorism, economic development, and the "task of standing up a government" in Kabul that is "sustainable". In fact, Britain is having an Afghanistan "surge" - increasing its 7,000-strong troop presence by 10%. What makes Afghanistan so special for Britain?

Britain often operates as the "brains trust" of the Anglo-American alliance. The criticality of the Afghan theater was underscored last week when hardly days ahead of the scheduled visit of Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri to Washington, three senior US officials arrived in Islamabad for consultations, namely the chief of the US Central Command Admiral William Fallon, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, and assistant secretary of state Richard Boucher.

Washington evidently decided there were matters that were best discussed with President General Pervez Musharraf. The visitors from Washington seemed pleased with their discussions. Meanwhile, the chorus of criticism by the Kabul setup about Pakistan's support of the Taliban insurgency has also noticeably diminished.

President Hamid Karzai is finely attuned to Washington's priorities. He will have pointed out that the six-year war is outgrowing Afghanistan, and he can see Washington's new priorities. He will have noted that all the cacophony about the restoration of democracy in Pakistan isn't impacting on Washington. Clearly, the US administration will not lose sleep if Musharraf keeps on his uniform.

What makes Musharraf an indispensable ally at this point in time? In a nutshell, in the Anglo-American global agenda, larger considerations overlap the day-to-day vicissitudes of the "war on terror". They relate to the "new cold war". Musharraf's stance as an ally can make a big difference. Pakistan, in other words, is regaining the status of a "frontline state" in Anglo-American regional policy. This centrality of Pakistan is comparable to the period under president Zia ul-Haq (1977-88). Militant Islam once again assumes potency in the geopolitics of Central Asia.

The "new cold war" necessitates a robust strategic push by the Western alliance into Central Asia. As German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said on Wednesday after the European Union foreign ministers' meeting in Luxembourg, Central Asia has been "like a blind spot in the EU's line of vision". The EU foreign ministers gave approval to the bloc's first-ever strategy toward Central Asia. In recent months, Washington has been keenly goading the EU to do precisely that.

The hullabaloo is not entirely about oil and gas, either. Steinmeier stressed that the EU is adopting a broad strategic view. He said, "Economic links, energy-trading links can be one basis, but it is just one among many. We are also very concerned about political stability in this context, which, as you know, is threatened by instabilities in the southern neighborhood, be it Afghanistan or Iran."

Anglo-American efforts to unite Europe, and to secure a strong European partner in Central Asia, have assumed urgency with the need to pursue a more robust strategic thrust into that region. That the various "ink spots" are interconnected in the Anglo-American strategy may not be obvious, but Fallon's stopover in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, after the visit to Islamabad did reinforce that point. Simply put, Turkmenistan and Pakistan are vital to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) operations in Central Asia. And both countries border Iran.

Again, it is not a mere question of working out the logistics for Western military aircraft flying through Russian airspace to Afghanistan. The fact is Pakistan is uniquely placed - geographically and politically - to affect the outcome of Anglo-American strategy toward Iran and Central Asia. Zia was extremely prescient about such a geopolitical setting.

In recent months, the US media have reported on the role of Pakistani security agencies in enabling covert US operations aimed at destabilizing Iran. If US Vice President Dick Cheney has his way and a US-Iran military confrontation indeed takes place, Pakistan's role becomes of vital importance to Washington.

To quote prominent Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid in the Los Angeles Times recently, "Current and past US officials tell me that Pakistan policy is essentially being run from Cheney's office. The vice president, they say, is close to Musharraf and refuses to brook any criticism of him ... No one at Foggy Bottom [Department of State] seems willing to question Cheney's decisions."

Cheney's interests do not usually go beyond oil and the New American Century project. Even making allowance for Rashid's proximity to Karzai or his well-known antipathy toward Musharraf, it is extraordinary that Cheney has developed such a keen interest in Pakistan. Musharraf is well placed to take a leaf out of Zia's life and times. He can ask the White House for a quid pro quo for his role with regard to Iran and the "new cold war".

Indeed, influential figures in the US and Britain have begun arguing lately that Pakistan's legitimate interests in Afghanistan must be accommodated. Former British foreign secretary and defense secretary Malcolm Rifkind recently wrote in The Independent newspaper, "The key will be winning full Pakistani support ... That will not be achieved by threats or exhortations. It needs a more sophisticated approach, one that recognizes legitimate Pakistani concerns and interests. Only then will we make real progress."

Rifkind identified two aspects to Pakistan's "national interests that have been largely ignored by the West". First and foremost, he said, Pakistan's Pashtun-Balochi problem and the entire Taliban

phenomenon are also linked to India-Pakistan differences over Kashmir and to wider India-Pakistan relations. He implied that India manipulated Afghanistan "to see a Pakistan weakened and distracted by frontier problems" on its western border, and under this compulsion, Pakistan "welcomed the Taliban as they were religious fundamentalists, not Pashtun nationalists, and therefore had no claim on Pakistani territory". The solution lies in "encouraging" India to reduce its presence in Afghanistan. Second, Rifkind said, the Kabul government must be made to accept the Durand Line as the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

But Musharraf's wish list may not necessarily be so modest. He knows Zia drove a hard bargain in comparable circumstances. Musharraf can flag that the role he is about to play in US regional policy is fraught with risks. It could pitch Pakistan into a standoff with major countries in the region. Conceivably, Musharraf's list would include the establishment of a government in Kabul over which Pakistan has predominant influence. It is not important how he rationalizes such a claim. What matters is how to reconcile Pakistani aspirations with a Western-oriented setup in Kabul. There has to be give-and-take on both sides. But, fortunately for the Anglo-American alliance and for Pakistan, this is within the realm of possibility.

The Taliban are not a monolithic movement. Apart from one or two countries that may doggedly view the Taliban in one-dimensional terms, it is well understood that "Taliban" is a generic word. It refers to a broad range of discontented and dispossessed Afghan people; it includes people who have vested interests; it includes time-servers and opportunists amenable to manipulation by foreigners; it does include elements wedded to violence as a method of political expression; and it no doubt contains a small segment of ideologically committed warriors and a large swath of observant Muslims.

Also, the people who hold power and the people who lead the movement behind the scenes are not necessarily the same. The Taliban have a composite leadership. Besides, a mystique has always been carefully built around the Talibs ever since they came out of the madrassas in Pakistan in the autumn of 1994, which allows shadow plays to be staged in their name, almost ad infinitum. Clearly, this extraordinary set of circumstances poses a challenge and an opportunity for all outside protagonists interested in "finessing" the Taliban.

The Anglo-American camp will remain vigilant, of course, while trusting Pakistani instincts. Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is immensely endowed with the expertise to chaff the grain from the husk. Its Afghan cell was highly skilled in playing disparate, freewheeling, unruly, violent, moody and ideologically fired-up elements of the Afghan mujahideen like puppets on a string. It is capable of weaning the Taliban and inserting them into Kabul as a "responsible" stakeholder.

In all likelihood such an effort is on. Hardcore Taliban commanders like Mullah Dadullah may be incrementally eliminated. "Burned-out" figures like Jalaluddin Haqqani may be pulled back from the arena. What is abundantly clear is that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is rising into prominence once again. He was the ISI's favorite proxy during the Afghan jihad in the 1980s, and almost until the mid-1990s, when it began viewing the Taliban as a trump card.

The ISI would be justified in putting Hekmatyar on the comeback trail. He has impeccable "jihadi" credentials, yet he is a politician first and last. He has a strong power base among the Ghilzai Pashtun tribes of eastern Afghanistan. He is a ruthless practitioner of power. The curtain has come down on his peers among the original "Peshawar Seven".

The ISI could count on Hekmatyar to build bridges with the Northern Alliance groups and even with the Jamiat-i-Islami leadership that could isolate the erstwhile Shura-e Nazar, which Pakistan regarded with suspicion as "pro-India". The Shura-e Nazar was a federation of military forces led by various mujahideen commanders, mostly from the north and northeast of Afghanistan.

No doubt, Hekmatyar was an unhappy man during his period of exile at the time of Taliban rule from mid-1996 until the end of 2001, when the ISI didn't want him either in Pakistan or in Afghanistan. But he remains profoundly loyal to Islamabad for meticulously plotting his political career ever since he fled Kabul in 1974 for Pakistan as a militant university student. Equally, it is of no mean consequence to the ISI that Hekmatyar has been stridently "anti-Indian".

Above all, Hekmatyar has supporters among top retired Pakistani generals. Musharraf will be a net gainer, too, if the Islamic parties, which kept strong links with Hekmatyar (and the Taliban), especially the Jamaat-i-Islami led by Qazi Hussein Ahmed, do not consort with former prime minister Nawaz Sharif on a staunchly nationalistic platform. Washington would see the rationale. After all, the forces of Islam could have strange uses. It all depends on how to harness them.

But how would Washington handle Hekmatyar? Technically, he remains a "terrorist" in the US lexicon. But Hekmatyar's "anti-Americanism" and Washington's antipathy toward him all along have seemed a little too contrived. US intelligence looked away when Zia diverted to Hekmatyar the bulk of the US arms supplies meant for the Afghan mujahideen. Hekmatyar's "Saudi connection" must also be a matter of comfort for Washington.

From Washington's perspective, what might tilt the balance in favor of Hekmatyar is his visceral hatred toward Russia. From all accounts, he was also bitter about his humiliating expulsion by his Iranian hosts in 2002. He could be an eligible figure to hold the fort in Kabul if a "new cold war" really begins.

M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for more than 29 years, with postings including ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-98) and to Turkey (1998-2001).

Insecurity jeopardizing WFP initiatives in western Afghanistan

Kabul, June 23 (ANI): The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) has warned that continuing security problems are hampering operations in some parts of Afghanistan, especially in the west of the country where food stocks are running short and thousands of the most vulnerable people may soon see critical food supplies curtailed or interrupted.

"WFP has been unable to move food to the western region of Afghanistan for four weeks due to insecurity. Unless we can resume movement along the southern ring road soon, we will run out of food in the west in the coming weeks, and will have to reduce or suspend distributions to many of the poor families, children and internally displaced people living in those areas," ," said Rick Corsino, Country Director for WFP Afghanistan.

"We continue to work with Government authorities at central, provincial and district level, as well as our own transporters, to enable deliveries to resume, hopefully as soon as possible," Corsino added.

WFP currently has 14,800 metric tons of food ready to move in Quetta, Pakistan, with transporters and trucks available to resume shipments across the border into Afghanistan when conditions permit.

Most of the security problems are concentrated in western and southern Afghanistan but there are also similar concerns in some areas of the east. In northern and central Afghanistan, and in many parts of the south and east, WFP operations are continuing as normal.

Since June 2006, there have been 25 incidents involving trucks carrying WFP food throughout Afghanistan. An estimated 600 tons of food has been lost, valued at approximately 400,000 dollars. Most trucks are provided by commercial transporters and are not marked as United Nations or WFP.

The majority of incidents involving WFP food have taken place on the southern ring road, which is a major artery linking Kandahar to Herat. The provinces of Paktika and Ghazni in the eastern region have also become difficult to reach.

Afghanistan through its own media

By the Afghan team - BBC Monitoring / Friday, 22 June 2007

Afghanistan has a lively media scene, with hundreds of publications and radio and TV stations.

Newspapers tend to speak to the political elite, believing that it is the sector of society that can bring about change. The press tackles issues openly, including sensitive themes such as corruption and nepotism.

But some matters are not dealt with by state-owned media. Government-run TV, for example, shies away from openly criticising the regional powerhouses of Pakistan and Iran.

This is not to say that the private media are fully independent. Aina (Mirror) TV is known to support the northern-based warlord Abdorrashid Dostum.

The most popular TV station remains the privately-owned Tolo (Dawn). Its investigative journalism and entertainment programmes are favoured by the younger generation and resented by the conservative sectors of society.

Several fronts have opened against President Hamed Karzai simultaneously and factions have emerged within his government.

The United National Front - an unlikely alliance of former mojahedin and communists set up last autumn - says it wants to work with Mr Karzai, but its proclaimed aim is to switch to a parliamentary system and elected provincial governors.

Mr Karzai's own advisor, former Defence Minister Marshal Fahim, who is in the Front, has said the president is "weak" and has set up "a unilateral government", instead of one representing all ethnic groups.

And in May, Mr Karzai was forced to defend his foreign minister, Rangin Dadfar-Spanta, through the Supreme Court after a majority of MPs voted to impeach him over alleged poor handling of Iran's deportation of Afghan refugees.

TV stations were cautious in their reporting, while newspapers were outspoken. The independent Daily Afghanistan said the impeachment case "demonstrated parliament's immaturity" and added that the vote had been "rigged".

The pro-government Weesa criticised the foreign minister for revealing what it called "a high-level secret"; that Iran's ulterior motive may have been to gain access to Afghanistan's water supplies.

"If Iran is exerting pressure on our country because of Helmand river water... why did the foreign minister not reveal this before?" the paper asked.

The views presented in the Afghan press may point to factions emerging within the government.

Distrust between Afghanistan and Pakistan stems largely from Kabul's complaints that Islamabad allows Taleban militants based in Pakistan to cross the border and mount attacks inside Afghanistan.

The two countries have long-standing border disputes and their forces clashed several times in May after Pakistan began to fence parts of the border despite strong objections from Afghanistan.

After a one-day visit to Kabul on 5 June, Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz pledged his country's willingness to cooperate on security, but reaction in the local media was negative.

"Pakistani actions have forced us once again to doubt the sincerity of the Pakistani premier's comments because experience has shown that Pakistan does the opposite of what it says," wrote the independent daily Rah-e Nejat.

Meanwhile, tension has mounted between Afghanistan and Iran over accusations that Iran is supplying arms to the Taleban, as well as Iran's deportation of Afghan refugees.

Afghan media reported that allegations over Iranian-made arms captured in western Afghanistan had been played down by Mr Karzai and US Defence Secretary Robert Gates.

The media are upset at Afghanistan getting caught up in the US-Iran dispute. "The decision by those countries to use Afghanistan as a platform for their long-standing hostility is unacceptable and unjustifiable," wrote Rah-e Nejat.

The media in Afghanistan are divided over the reasons for the deteriorating security situation. The state-run daily Hewad blames warlords and the gun culture - the legacy of nearly three decades of turmoil.

But a roundtable discussion on Tolo TV suggested that the government's "weak" response to security incidents had contributed to the rising incidence of suicide attacks in the capital.

Participants in a discussion programme on Aina TV accused "specific circles" within the government of destabilising the situation in the north in an effort to form a powerful central government at the expense of local politicians.

Civilian casualties and the behaviour of foreign troops in Afghanistan have also been mentioned as factors contributing to security problems.

"Uncoordinated and arbitrary operations, especially by US troops... have spurred feelings against foreign troops in the country and convinced the people to help the Taleban," said Rah-e Nejat.

Arman-e Melli highlighted the links between reconstruction and security and said one of the reasons for Nato's "failure" in Afghanistan was the lack of attention given to reconstruction and improving the living conditions of the people.

Etefaq-e Eslam attempted to answer questions raised by ordinary Afghans puzzled by the lack of success in restoring stability, despite the international community's good will.

"Perhaps resorting to military action alone is not the solution to the problem," it said. Both private and state-run publications run features on what is seen as rampant corruption.

Hewad captured the general mood in the media when it said "government and public property has been plundered to a degree unprecedented in the 5,000-year history of this war-hit country."

Arman-e Melli went a stage further, saying most of those accused of corruption "are supported by some senior officials". "Profession, knowledge, experience, official background and skills are still ignored in most ministries and independent departments."

Sounding a note of pessimism, the independent weekly Mosharekat-e Melli believes the government may have given up the fight. "Fighting corruption... is no longer the government's plan, and this might be because of the government's failure in tackling them effectively."

Private and state media approach the drugs issue in the same way: they focus on the failure of the official counter-narcotics strategy, blaming corruption and government inefficiency.

Afghan media are also aware of the way the drugs problem has damaged the country's reputation.

While official media appeal to farmers to stop growing poppy for the sake of Afghanistan's reputation abroad, independent media generally side with poppy farmers, pointing out that the West has failed to tackle the demand for drugs.

And in a recent TV interview, an Afghan professor said that it was probable that foreign forces were themselves involved in the drugs trade. There is growing interest in other aspects of the drugs problem, including addiction and health issues.

Recently, there have been a growing number of factual reports about the increase in the number of female and teenage drug addicts.

While addiction among these groups of society has been linked to poverty and ignorance, the prominent view is still that addiction is a habit that young male Afghan refugees picked up in exile in Iran and Pakistan.

The government is concerned over mounting criticism in the media on issues such as corruption, the insurgency and the alleged disproportionate distribution of power and aid in the country. This has prompted it to try to rein in the independent media.

In April, the legal adviser of Tolo TV, Mohammad Abdollah, was summoned to the Senate. "The Senate's Complaints Commission had a meeting with officials of Tolo... and said the station's programmes were against constitutional law and Islamic values," said the official Bakhtar news agency.

"The legal adviser of Tolo TV said the station would make changes to its programmes as part of an understanding with parliament and the Ministry of Culture and Information," the report added.

There are encouraging signs though. It appears that the conservatives and traditionalists have adjusted themselves to the reality of co-existing with independent media.

Following meetings between the National Union of Afghan Journalists and MPs, parliament - largely dominated by former mojahedin - loosened the government's grip by amending the Media Law.

This was cautiously welcomed by media activists. Sayed Fazel Sancharaki, the president of the journalists' union, was quoted as saying that the "new law... is better than the former law and is in the interest of media officials and journalists".

The amended law, now before Mr Karzai for approval, strips the Information and Culture Ministry of some powers that were seen to be aimed at curbing freedom of expression.

Despite this, activists remain concerned over numerous prohibitions, such as those on defamation and insult, that are vague and open to interpretation.

As the independent daily Cheragh noted, freedom of expression was "the only achievement" of the government in the last five years, something that had to be safeguarded.

BBC Monitoring selects and translates news from radio, television, press, news agencies and the internet from 150 countries in more than 70 languages. It is based in Caversham, UK, and has several bureaux abroad.

AFGHANISTAN: Children share the brunt of casualties in conflict

TIRINKOT , 24 June 2007 (IRIN) - The killing of children in fighting between international forces and Taliban insurgents has led to more calls from the UN and human rights groups for the protection of non-combatants in Afghanistan.

In the most recent incident, on 22 June, a NATO air strike in the southern province of Helmand killed 25 civilians, including nine women and three young children, AFP news agency reported quoting local police. The children were aged between six months and two years old, the report added.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has strongly condemned the recent spate of violence in Afghanistan.

"The Secretary-General condemns these acts in the strongest possible terms, which reflect an inexcusable disregard for the value of human life," his spokesperson said in a statement on 20 June.

The statement added that "over the past few days, there has been a spate of similar attacks in other parts of the country, reportedly claiming the lives of dozens of civilians, including 11 children".

On 19 June, Radhika Coomaraswamy, UN Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, called upon all sides of the conflict "to take all necessary steps to protect children and to respect international humanitarian law".

Afghan children are affected by the armed conflict in their war-ravaged country in many different ways, according to Afghanistan's human rights commission (AIHRC).

"Children are used as soldiers, deprived of education, killed or wounded, forced to migrate, and divested of many other securities," Najibullah Babrakzai, a children protection officer for AIHRC, said.

"We call upon the Taliban, US military, ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] and all other parties involved in the conflict to reduce the impact of their military operations on Afghan children," said Babrakzai.

Over the past few weeks, fighting has claimed the lives of many civilians, including children, observers say.

On 18 June, in heavy clashes between Taliban insurgents and NATO-led ISAF forces in the Chora district of the southern province of Urozgan, scores of civilians, including children, were killed or injured, according to local officials.

Mawlawi Hamdullah, head of Urozgan's provincial council, told reporters on 19 June that up to 60 civilians were killed in the military operation.

Rabia, 4, and her mother Bibi Raziqa were wounded in the fighting and were admitted to a hospital in Tirinkot, the provincial capital of Urozgan. "The whole night she cried for her mother," said Sardaar Mohammad, Rabia's uncle.

But Major John Thomas, a spokesman for ISAF in Kabul, told IRIN that almost all of those killed in that operation were insurgents.

On 15 June, at about 11:15am local time, a suicide bomber detonated his explosives in Tirinkot, which culminated in the death of 11 children, eight to 15 years old, and one soldier, the UN confirmed.

"I have one question: Who on the side of those calling themselves 'Taliban' will take responsibility for these crimes?" asked Chris Alexander, Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Afghanistan.

At least seven other children died on the night of 17 June, when US warplanes bombed an Islamic school in Zarghun Shah District in the southeastern province of Paktika, a US military press release confirmed.

"We did not know that Americans would bomb the school," Akram Khpalwak Paktika's governor, told IRN, adding there were fears that the place was used as a safe haven by the Taliban.

On 12 June, gunmen suspected to be associated with Taliban insurgents opened fire on schoolgirls in the central Logar province killing two students - 12-year-old Shukria and 13-year-old Saadia - and wounding three others.

"We are neither with the Taliban nor with the government. But why are our sons and daughters killed? Why do both sides kill us?" asked Sobhanullah, who lost his 10-year-old daughter in the suicide bomb attack on 15 June.

[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.]