In this bulletin:

• Corruption rife in Afghanistan: President
• US seeks concrete reform steps from Afghan leader Karzai
• Japan Lower House OKs Navy Mission
• Iran demarcates borders with Afghanistan
• NATO countries at risk of complicity in torture
• Afghan Agency Rejects Amnesty Report On Detainee Torture
• NATO Rejects Amnesty Report On Prisoner Torture in Afghanistan
• Canada dismisses charges NATO complicit in torture
• France weighs expanding role on the ground
• While Pakistan Burns
• AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN: UN REPORT SAYS SUICIDE BOMBERS GET SUPPORT IN BOTH COUNTRIES
• New medical facility opens in Ghazni province
• Private security, public perceptions
• Opinion: What next after Swat?

Corruption rife in Afghanistan: President

By Hamid Shalizi - Tue Nov 13, KABUL (Reuters) - Corruption among Afghan officials is rife and government must be reformed to help end 30 years of war, misery and oppression, President Hamid Karzai said on Tuesday in an unusually frank assessment of his country's woes.

Large profits from Afghanistan's $3-billion opium crop, funds skimmed from aid and reconstruction contracts and bribes for services fuel official corruption, weaken public faith in the government and increase support for hardline Taliban insurgents.

"We have seen a lot of misery in this country, but still we have not learned a lesson from our mistakes. The luxurious houses and buildings either belong to government staff or members of parliament," Karzai told a meeting of village elders in Kabul.

The capital Kabul and other cities are currently undergoing a building boom with gaudy villas springing up in wealthier neighborhoods while the poor live in mud huts with no running water or electricity.

After Karzai spoke, an old man rose to his feet.

"There is something I can't tell you, but if I don't tell you I will feel guilty inside," he told the president who urged him to speak his mind.

"The government and cabinet members are sucking the blood of innocent people, we can't tolerate the corruption in every government office," he said.

"Yes, you are absolutely right," replied Karzai. "I appeal to all Afghans, especially those in power, to work hand-in-hand to build, to serve this country without deceiving and exploiting it."

Afghanistan is ranked 172 out of 180 countries on Transparency International's corruption perception index.

Official graft is one of the factors that has allowed opium production to rise to record-breaking levels, the United Nations says, it also weakens the grip of government on many regions -- both factors which boost the insurgency.

More than six years after U.S.-led and Afghan forces toppled the Taliban for refusing to give up al Qaeda leaders in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Afghanistan is still suffering from daily violence and a spreading Taliban insurgency.

"The number of martyrs is increasing every day, and at least one person from every family has been martyred in the past 30 years," said Karzai. Afghanistan has been in a more or less constant state of war since a 1978 communist coup.

"May Allah save us from this misery. We have no patience with the current situation in Afghanistan. We have no patience with further enmity and atrocities in this nation. May Allah may save us from this internal and external oppression."

"We haven't learned a lesson yet. There is deceit, misuse and playing with this land," he said. "The system of this government must be reformed."

Karzai has led Afghanistan since shortly after the 2001 fall of the Taliban and has tried to balance influence between competing factions and ethnic groups.

While Karzai is widely seen as honest, Western countries have long urged him to take tough action against officials and some of those close to him who are alleged to be corrupt. (Writing by Jon Hemming; Editing by Bill Tarrant)

US seeks concrete reform steps from Afghan leader Karzai

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States has expressed concern over "unacceptable" levels of corruption and deteriorating security in Afghanistan and sought concrete reform steps from President Hamid Karzai.

"There is serious problem of governance in Afghanistan," said Zalmay Khalilzad, the US envoy to the United Nations, on Monday.

"At the national level, corruption exists at unacceptable levels. At the provincial and district levels, especially in contested areas, government, particularly police, too often is weak, ineffective, sometimes non-existent and sometimes even predatory," he told an American-Afghan business conference.

Karzai, an Afghan-American and former envoy to Kabul, said security, particularly in the south, had been deteriorating, and escalation of Taliban attacks had made much more of the countryside insecure, leading to reduction in reconstruction and economic development.

He listed other problems, including "too much polarization" among Afghan political leaders, the growing illegal opium economy, high unemployment and the lackluster pace of reconstruction.

Key reforms, Khalilzad said, should include making appointments based on merit, countering corruption, implementing program for institutionalizing the rule of law and working systematically to stamp state authority and good governance at the provincial and district levels.

"President Karzai has committed himself to this objective, he has promised to direct his government to advance these goals. We look forward to seeing the concrete steps that are needed to realizing this vision, and now," he said.

Karzai also sought greater international commitment to support Afghanistan's development and "improve the regional context for stabilizing" the nation under threat from Taliban militants.

"The stakes for the international community are enormous in Afghanistan," he said. "The sucess of Afghanistan is crucial for the wider efforts to stablize and create progress in the broader Middle East," he said.

The NATO-led 37-nation ISAF and a separate US-led coalition, totaling about 55,000 foreign soldiers, are fighting with Afghan security forces to block the return to power of the hardline Taliban Islamic militia ousted in 2001.

The United States has criticized some NATO members for being unwilling to deploy troops to the volatile south and east of Afghanistan.

Khalilzad said restoring security in Afghanistan was "a test of the ability of NATO to prevail in a key theatre in the defining challenge of our time."

On the problem of "political polarization," he said Afghan leaders should unite behind their "national interest.

"There is nothing wrong in debating different perspectives or with political competition, provided that this takes place within a framework of national unity that serves the nation's interest and does not harm Afghanistan's long term interest," he said.

"Leaders should be concernd about all Afghan people regardless of their ethnic or sectarian background and should reject the approach of seeking to divide Afghans because of ethnic and sectarian issues," he said.

Japan Lower House OKs Navy Mission

By MARI YAMAGUCHI – TOKYO (AP) — Japan's lower house of parliament approved a resumption of the country's anti-terrorism naval mission in the Indian Ocean on Tuesday, defying opposition lawmakers who had forced a halt in the operation.

The legislation, which now goes to the upper house, would limit Japanese ships to refueling and supplying water to ships used in monitoring and inspecting vessels suspected of links to terrorism or arms smuggling.

Japanese warships had refueled vessels the U.S.-led coalition fighting in Afghanistan since 2001, but withdrew on Nov. 1 when the opposition blocked an extension of the operation, saying it violated Japan's pacifist constitution.

Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda's ruling Liberal Democratic Party argued that Japan would be shirking its responsibilities as a leading nation if it left the mission halted indefinitely. The United States also has been pushing for a resumption.

"How can Japan be the only one to drop out when our fight against terrorism is only half way through and other countries are cooperating?" asked LDP lawmaker Yasutoshi Nishimura during the debate leading up to the vote.

The move came ahead of Fukuda's visit to Washington later this week, where he is expected to offer assurances to President Bush about Japan's support of U.S. foreign policy.

The scaled-back mission was introduced by the LDP as a compromise intended to show the public its flexibility, though it has failed to win opposition support. Public opinion is divided, though polls show more Japanese favor it than oppose it.

The opposition, led by the Democratic Party of Japan, controls the upper house, but the ruling coalition has enough votes in the lower house to overrule the other chamber.

The bill, however, must still be debated in upper house, meaning it likely will be held up for weeks. In another move to delay passage, the DPJ has submitted legislation in the upper house to scrap the mission.

During Tuesday's debate, opposition lawmakers said there is no guarantee that the oil provided by Japan in the mission would not be used in attacks on Afghanistan.

"Obviously, the bill allows Japan to refuel U.S. warships, which are usually on multiple military missions," said Seiken Akamine, a communist. "Depending on how the U.S. military uses it, we end up supporting all kinds of attacks, including air raids on Afghanistan."

During its six-year mission, Japan provided about 126 million gallons of fuel to coalition warships in the Indian Ocean from seven countries, including those from the U.S., Britain and Pakistan, according to the Defense Ministry.

Fukuda will leave for Washington on Thursday on a three-day visit, his first overseas trip since taking office in September.

Iran demarcates borders with Afghanistan

IRNA, Iran, 11/13/2007 - Iran has recently started largest and major demarcation project at its long border lines with Afghanistan in east of the country, it was reported on Tuesday.

The project is being carried out by geographical organization of Iran's Defense Ministry, the ministry's Public Relations Office said.

The project, to be launched along the 949 km of Iran-Afghanistan border areas, will demarcate 709 km of land and 236 km of sea border between the two neighboring states.

This is the first time that Iran and Afghanistan border areas are being demarcated over the past 100 years.

The project which has security, economic and development applications, is estimated to cost over rls 30bn. After completion, the project would be registered at the United Nations, the report added.

NATO countries at risk of complicity in torture

Amnesty International, Press release, 11.13.2007 - "We cannot rule out that torture is going on." – Norwegian Foreign Ministry Official interviewed by the Norwegian News Agency NTB, 27 July 2007

The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan is exposing detainees to real risks of torture or other ill-treatment by Afghan authorities, says Amnesty International in a report released today.

The report documents how ISAF forces – particularly those from Belgium, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and Norway – have transferred detainees to Afghanistan’s intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security (NDS), despite consistent reports of torture and other ill-treatment by the NDS.

"ISAF states are under an international obligation not to hand over detainees to Afghan authorities where they will be at risk of torture and other ill-treatment,” said Claudio Cordone, Senior Director for Research at Amnesty International. “Such transfers should be suspended until effective safeguards are in place.”

The UN reiterated its concerns about the NDS as recently as September 2007, when it called for investigations into allegations of torture and other ill-treatment by the NDS. Over the past two years, Amnesty International has received repeated reports of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees by the NDS, including being whipped, exposed to extreme cold and deprived of food.

“We were taken to the NDS compound in Kandahar…I was beaten on my back and especially my kidneys with a metal cable... A metal bar was placed under my chained arms and knees and I was hung from the hook on the ceiling and they continued to beat me. I was hung in this position for maybe one hour and lost consciousness.” – Testimony given to Amnesty International in December 2005.

The cases highlighted in the report include:
Detainees reporting being tortured after Canadian forces handed them over to the Afghan authorities; The Belgian and Norwegian governments losing track of transferred detainees; Difficulties encountered by the British and Dutch forces in ensuring independent monitoring of detainees in Afghan custody.

The report examines Memorandums of Understanding and other bilateral agreements between the Afghan government and ISAF forces including those from Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK.

“The obligation of ISAF states to protect individuals from such treatment cannot be discharged by relying upon bilateral agreements,” said Claudio Cordone. “These agreements are supposed to ensure that detainees are treated in accordance with international standards but have proved to be inadequate.”

Amnesty International puts forward a number of recommendations including:
ISAF must temporarily suspend all transfer of detainees to Afghan authorities and hold them in their custody until effective safeguards are in place.
ISAF contributing countries should promote the reform of the Afghan detention system and explore the feasibility of placing international staff within Afghan detention facilities in order to monitor and train new Afghan detention officials.

The Afghan government must publish the secret Presidential decree governing the operations of the NDS and take steps to separate its current functions of detention, investigation and prosecution.

The Afghan government should ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and invite the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture to visit Afghanistan, including detention facilities under the control of the NDS.
Independent monitors should be given unrestricted and unhindered access to all detention centres and unsupervised access to all detainees.

Afghan Agency Rejects Amnesty Report On Detainee Torture

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty - November 13, 2007 -- A spokesman for Afghanistan's intelligence service has rejected allegations that it has tortured detainees.

The allegations are contained in a new report by Amnesty International, which urges NATO troops in Afghanistan to stop transferring prisoners to Afghan authorities because they risk being tortured.

Amnesty singled out the National Directorate of Security, calling it a "serious threat to those in its custody."

But Sayeed Ansari, a spokesman for the agency, said its prisoners were treated according to the law.

"We have always treated prisoners under Afghan and international law. We have observed human rights. Human rights representatives recently visited all the prisons and detention centers of the National Directorate of Security, and they met with the prisoners. We reject the report. They can come and, once again, visit our prisons and see the situation and that there is no problem," Ansari said.

NATO earlier dismissed Amnesty's proposal for a transfer moratorium, saying its policy "was developed with the Red Cross/Crescent and meets international standards."

NATO Rejects Amnesty Report On Prisoner Torture in Afghanistan

By eNews 20 Staff, 13:29, November 13th 2007

NATO on Tuesday rejected criticism by Amnesty International of the way it deals with captives in Afghanistan.

The human rights organization said detainees transferred to Afghan authorities by the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) faced the risk of torture and other ill-treatment.

"We have no evidence of mistreatment or torture," said NATO spokesman James Appathurai in Brussels.

The procedures for dealing with prisoners "were developed with the International Red Cross," and conform with international standards, he said. The Red Cross was also monitoring the prisoner transfers.

The Amnesty report spoke of "a pattern of human rights violations perpetrated with impunity" by Afghanistan's intelligence service, the NDS, and voiced concern that NATO states were turning a blind eye.

The NATO spokesman said ISAF procedures stipulate that prisoners should either be released or handed over to Afghan authorities within 96 hours. Under international law, prisoners should not be transferred if there is a reason to suspect abuse or torture.

"Afghanistan is a sovereign country. We see no reason to run a parallel detention structure," Appathurai said, adding that Kabul has the legal responsibility for Afghan prisoners.

Amnesty called for a moratorium on the handing over of prisoners. It said this should only end when the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan meets international standards.

The spokesman said NATO was against a moratorium, but would like to see improvements in Afghanistan's judicial system and its prisons.

Canada dismisses charges NATO complicit in torture

CanWest News Service , Monday, November 12, 2007

Canada joined NATO Monday in dismissing new Amnesty International charges that NATO forces in Afghanistan are effectively complicit in torture.

The rights group says in a 40-page report that NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan should suspend transfers of detainees to Afghan authorities because of widespread reports they face torture.

"By transferring individuals to a situation where there is a grave risk of torture and other ill-treatment, ISAF states may be complicit in this treatment, and are breaching their international legal obligations," says the report, released in London.

In a response echoing the one released by NATO in Brussels, the Defence Department said the International Committee of the Red Cross had helped develop ISAF's transfer policy, which "meets all appropriate international standards."

Canada also endorsed NATO's statement that it has "no evidence" Afghan authorities mistreat detainees that ISAF has handed over.

The report comes just days after the Federal Court of Canada gave a green light for Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association to file a lawsuit claiming prisoner transfers violate the Canadian Constitution because of the risk of torture by Afghan authorities.

The new Amnesty report says there are persistent allegations prisoners face torture, particularly at the hands of Afghanistan's intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security (NDS).

Among three case studies is one arising from allegations last spring that as many as three dozen prisoners arrested by Canadian troops subsequently faced ill-treatment by Afghan security forces, including the NDS.

"While recognizing that a minority of detainees are transferred to other Afghan agencies, Amnesty International has particular concern about the frequency and scope of torture and other ill-treatment perpetrated by NDS personnel" says the report, titled Afghanistan: Detainees transferred to torture: ISAF complicity?

With other countries, Canada is helping rebuild Afghanistan's police force and national justice system, but the Amnesty report says the detention system has "fallen between the cracks" of those reform efforts.

"Detention is an integral part of any justice system," says the report. "The international community must address its shortcomings."

Amnesty says ISAF should think about placing staff inside Afghan detention facilities so that Afghan officials can be monitored and trained.

Again in tandem with NATO, Canada suggests Afghanistan already has protections in place, making a moratorium on transfers unnecessary.

"Afghanistan is a sovereign country with a constitution that requires the protection of human rights, and which has the responsibility for detention of Afghans," the Defence Department statement says.

"It is not for NATO to create a parallel detention structure, outside the law of the land."

Canada describes current international support for the Afghan justice system as the "only appropriate and sustainable way to improve the situation" -- but calls for those efforts to be stepped up.

Canada also joins NATO in rejecting Amnesty's lack of confidence in protections contained in transfer agreements -- Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) -- between the Afghan government and some of the 37 countries participating in ISAF.

"They serve to enhance visibility and accountability with regard to detainees," says the Defence Department statement.

Amnesty disagrees, saying they "do not fulfil the ... legal obligation not to put anyone in a situation where they are at risk of torture.

Countries with MoUs are Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom, while countries pursuing them are Belgium, France Germany and Sweden.

France weighs expanding role on the ground

DOUG SAUNDERS - Globe and Mail Update 11.13.07

November 13, 2007 - PARIS — Among Canadian officials and NATO leaders worried about an Afghanistan war that is falling short of soldiers, France has become a last great hope.

Because the Netherlands and Canada, two of the four countries holding down the conflict-scarred south of Afghanistan, are suffering large-scale casualties and are considering withdrawing their soldiers from the United Nations-mandated North Atlantic Treaty Alliance war in Afghanistan, pressure has fallen on the French to make up the loss -- and to provide a military partner that might encourage those countries to stay involved.

Since conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy was elected president in June, the French have entered a heated discussion on the possibility of building their role in Afghanistan, and military and diplomatic officials have taken this as a signal that France might provide much-needed extra forces in the war. In expectation, Canada has recently given its embassy in Paris a role in Afghanistan-related matters.

It could be a difficult mission. In interviews, senior French government officials say that a larger military role might be possible -- but it won't likely happen soon, and it will probably be part of a larger strategy to remake NATO and European military forces to be less reliant on the United States.

"There is a willingness, and we're very clear on that, to have a stronger involvement in Afghanistan,"said Eric Chevalier, a senior adviser to foreign minister Bernard Kouchner. "But the question of having more troops is only one piece of a stronger involvement, and we're looking at it …. We are also pushing for a more coherent approach from the international community on Afghanistan."

France currently has about 1,100 of the 40,000 NATO soldiers in Afghanistan, most of them in command of the region of Kabul, the capital. By agreement, none of them are to be involved in combat operations. In addition, since Mr. Sarkozy came to power, it has committed a group of fighter-bombers to support ground troops in Afghanistan, and has added 50 troops to train Afghan counterinsurgency forces.

While this is small compared to the 2,500 Canadian or 3,500 British NATO troops fighting there, France already has large NATO and UN military commitments in Kosovo, Lebanon, the Ivory Coast and elsewhere. And Mr. Sarkozy's government is torn between its pledge to renew NATO and its equally strong desire to build a European Union defence force independent of NATO.

Since the late 1960s, France has not been part of NATO's military command, which it has seen as being unduly influenced by the U.S. Officials have also raised hopes that it will fully rejoin the organization.

In Washington last week, Mr. Sarkozy raised expectations that France might play a larger role in Afghanistan during a speech to both U.S. houses of Congress in which he spoke of closer ties between the countries.

"France will remain engaged in Afghanistan as long as it takes, because what's at stake in that country is the future of our values and that of the Atlantic alliance," he said, contradicting an election promise to withdraw France's troops from Afghanistan.

Mr. Sarkozy also suggested that France might soon be playing a full role in NATO: "The more successful we are in the establishment of a European defence, the more France will be resolved to resume its full role in NATO."

Within NATO, these remarks were taken to mean that France will increase its forces in Afghanistan, and perhaps enter active combat, assisting the Canadian, Dutch, British and U.S. troops who are currently holding down the country's conflict-ridden south.

But some French observers said that such an expectation would be unrealistic, and that it might be enough for France simply to stay in Afghanistan.

"My interpretation is that 'greater commitment' means that in the recent past there was a temptation to withdraw French forces from Afghanistan, and now there is the realization that we should maintain some troops in Afghanistan," said Yves Boyer, director of the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Research, a military think tank.

"But not, probably, in the south like the Dutch or the Canadians or the British -- in political terms, you will find it very difficult to sell in France the idea that we should increase our presence in Afghanistan. We are already very committed in Africa, we are committed in Lebanon and in Kosovo, and we are really at the limit of what we can do as far as extending troops there."

Members of Mr. Sarkozy's government seem divided between those who would rather build an independent EU defence force first, and those who see a stronger, less U.S.-dominated NATO as a greater priority.

Mr. Sarkozy has walked the fence, suggesting in late August that "the two go hand in hand, an independent European defence and an Atlantic organization in which we would assume our full role."

However, a report on France's military role commissioned by Mr. Sarkozy and written by former foreign minister Hubert Vedrine suggests that the country should not rejoin the NATO command or increase its troop commitments unless the organization were reformed to have largely European command, with less US influence.

"France's rejoining a NATO which has been reformed thanks to its own skillful management of its availability for rapprochement would look very different from, and would mean something other than a 'return to NATO'," he wrote.

But Bernard Kouchner, the Socialist defence minister, has been an outspoken proponent of a greater French role in NATO.

However, he told a French TV interviewer last week that France ought not to increase its role in NATO until next summer at the earliest, because this might seem like submission to the US.

"First, we'll have to discuss this. I think there'll be a real debate, otherwise it would be seen as a political gesture of submission to the United States, and that's not at all the case," he said.

France has balked at making a greater contribution to the NATO mission to Afghanistan, although Canada has almost three times the troop commitment abroad for the size of its force than France.

While Pakistan Burns

Newsweek, 11/10/2007, By Sami Yousafzai and Ron Moreau

If you think Musharraf's wrong to free jailed Taliban members while he busts dissidents, wait until you hear who's back on the loose.

Pakistani lawyers, human-rights activists and opposition-party members can scarcely ignore the irony of their situation: while thousands of them are being beaten and locked up under President Pervez Musharraf's newly declared state of emergency, his government has just let more than two dozen militant Islamists out of jail. Protesters might be even angrier if Musharraf disclosed the names of some of those freed militants. Taliban sources tell NEWSWEEK that the top man on the list was Mullah Obaidullah Akhund—the highest-ranking Taliban official ever captured by the Pakistanis. As one of Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar's closest confidants and his defense minister until the post 9-11 invasion of Afghanistan, Obaidullah was No. 3 in the group's hierarchy and a member of its ruling 10-man shura (council).

His arrest on Feb. 26 seems to have been anything but a coincidence. That was the very day that Vice President Dick Cheney arrived in Islamabad on an unannounced visit to demand a crackdown on Taliban operations in Pakistan. Washington was out of patience with Taliban commanders not only roaming free in Pakistan's tribal lands but even being allowed to hide in plain sight in cities like Quetta--the provincial capital near the Afghan border where Obaidullah was captured, along with the Taliban's senior Zabul province commander, Amir Khan Haqqani. Obaidullah, Haqqani and the others might still be in jail if not for a Pakistani military convoy that encountered a rockslide on a highway in South Waziristan in late August. The vehicles were quickly surrounded by fighters loyal to the notorious Pakistani tribal warlord Baitullah Mehsud, a veteran Taliban supporter who operates training camps for suicide bombers in his territory. More than 250 government troops were in the convoy, and they all surrendered without a shot being fired. Mehsud later beheaded several of his captives before Musharraf agreed to a prisoner swap.

Mehsud finally released the last 211 surviving hostages on Nov. 4, the day after Musharraf declared a state of emergency and began rounding up dissidents in the name of confronting "extremism and terrorism." In exchange for the freed troops, the tribal warlord got the men he wanted out of jail. Besides Obaidullah and Haqqani, they included two brothers of another senior Taliban leader, Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Osmani. He and his two brothers had shared a house in Quetta until his death last December. U.S. forces, reportedly tipped off by Pakistani intelligence, killed him as he was crossing into Afghanistan. His brothers were arrested at his house in Quetta at the same time. Also released was Mehsud's cousin, who was the first suicide bomber captured with his suicide vest intact.

Intelligence reports of Obaidullah's release have raised concern among American officials. At the moment they're still checking whether it was in fact the senior Taliban official who was freed and not someone else by the same name. A Pakistani military source denied to NEWSWEEK that Obaidullah had been released—but in the next breath claimed to be unaware that Obaidullah had ever been captured. At least two important Taliban commanders have confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Mullah Omar's third in command is back on the loose. Another Taliban operative says Obaidullah spoke to one of his fellow fighters on the phone several days ago.

In any case the prisoner swap is a severe setback for U.S. efforts in the region. The Taliban and their Pakistani tribal allies have learned that hostage taking can yield big rewards. And these days they have all the potential trading chips they could ask for in the borderlands, where Pakistan's out-maneuvered and increasingly demoralized troops are almost routinely surrendering to the militants. For now, the people of Pakistan will have to take any comfort they can from knowing that Musharraf is protecting them from lawyers and human rights activists.

AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN: UN REPORT SAYS SUICIDE BOMBERS GET SUPPORT IN BOTH COUNTRIES - 11/12/07, By Ron Synovitz A EurasiaNet Partner Post from RFE/RL

Pakistani and Afghan authorities have repeatedly accused each other of failing to provide adequate security to prevent cross-border suicide attacks by Taliban-linked militants.

Until recently, however, little publicly available research has been conducted to understand or explain the way suicide bombings have been proliferating in Afghanistan since 2005.

But a recent report by United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) suggests that people in both Pakistan and Afghanistan are in a state of denial about the problem.

"The important big picture is that Afghans like to tell you that [suicide attacks] are a Pakistani phenomenon. Pakistan has been long saying that this not just [Pakistan]. And this is exactly what the report said," says Christine Fair, the coordinator and main author of the UN report.

"There certainly is a Pakistani component, and it is a very important component," she adds. "But even if Pakistan went away, you'd still have a largely Afghan-driven insurgency. Obviously, Pakistan has an impact upon that. But taking away Pakistan, the insurgency doesn't go away."

Fair says suicide bombings in both Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal areas appear to be a cross-border phenomenon. And she says the problem is not going to be resolved as long as Afghan and Pakistani officials keep assigning the blame to each other.

"The report was the first [report] to actually say that this is truly a problem where the solution resides in both Afghanistan as well as Pakistan," Fair says. "The Pakistanis were apparently outraged by the report, with the argument that [it] overestimates the Pakistani involvement. I was rather shocked by that, because, from my point of view, the report's useful intervention was that it actually drove home to Afghans that they have to stop putting the blame for this squarely on Pakistan's shoulders -- because, clearly, Afghans have got issues which need to be fixed domestically as well."

The tactic was rarely seen in Afghanistan until 2005. Since then, suicide attacks have become increasingly common in Afghanistan, running at a rate of about three to four per week.

The report is based upon several types of data. Fair first used a UN database that provided reliable information about the locations of suicide bombings and the number of people killed. She also was given access and allowed to interview 25 would-be suicide bombers who had failed or refused to carry out attacks they had been trained for. All of those would-be bombers were Afghans who, with few exceptions, had spent time in Pakistan. Fair also was allowed to interview Afghan police and intelligence officers about how they had reached their official conclusions about the backgrounds of suicide bombers.

The report notes that suicide attacks were very rare in Afghanistan until 2005 but have become increasingly commonplace since then. It says the increase in suicide attacks may suggest that more attackers and explosive materials are readily available, that planning takes place continuously, or that a series of attacks are planned where local coordinators have the power within a "mission command" structure to order attacks when they are prepared. But Fair stresses that Afghan authorities must start admitting to their own people that the majority of the suicide attacks in Afghanistan are carried out with help from Afghans.

"As we all know, there is Pakistani involvement," she says. "There is recruitment across the border in the tribal areas, and madrasahs pre-figure prominently. We all know this. There is nothing to debate on this issue. But there is a larger point that most Afghans are not familiar with: there are Afghans who are involved, not only in the capacity of suicide attackers, but they are also involved obviously in safe houses. They are obviously involved in the production of bombs. They are involved in getting bombers to targets. At every point in the provision of suicide attacks, an Afghan is necessary. This is [a finding] that the Afghans need to embrace and they need to deal with."

Significantly, Fair says the report contradicts some media reports and assessments that expertise from insurgents in Iraq is being imported directly into Afghanistan by Taliban-linked militants. "There is all this speculation that these guys are learning lessons from Iraq. We don't see any evidence for it. It differs hugely," Fair says.

"We are not seeing the technical innovation that is often talked about in the media," she continues. "The bombs are not getting any better. Afghan [militants] are continuing to use what has worked for them. We just do not see any evidence that this is an Iraqi phenomenon imported to Afghanistan."

Fair adds that the "best parallel is actually across the border in Pakistan. At about the same time that suicide bombing was being developed and deployed against security forces in Afghanistan, it was also being developed and deployed in Pakistan along the tribal area. And suicide bombing was being used in Pakistan long before it came to be used in Iraq."

Fair says one of the most frustrating aspects of her work in Afghanistan on the report was to discover how quick Afghan police and security officials are to announce after a suicide attack that the bomber was a foreigner. Fair questioned those Afghan authorities about many suicide bombings and says she discovered that the backgrounds of most suicide bombers in Afghanistan are not adequately investigated.

"I was told repeatedly that these attackers are not Afghans -- that they are Pakistanis, 18 to 24 years old, from [the] Waziristan [tribal areas of Pakistan]," Fair says. "And I would repeatedly ask how [they had reached such a conclusion.] And they -- be it a chief of police or be it an [officer in Afghanistan's] National Directorate for Security -- would repeatedly tell me they knew this because 'the [bomber's] feet survived and the feet are brown. Our feet aren't as brown as this. These are clearly Pakistani.' Or similar claims would advanced about remains of the head.

"None of these people are forensic anthropologists. There is absolutely no way you can distinguish an Afghan foot from a Pakistani foot. This is called wishful thinking. So until the Afghans really take seriously the investigations into these attackers, as do other countries that confront suicide bombings, this facilitates the collective imagination [among Afghans] that these [suicide bombers] are all Pakistanis."

Fair says Afghan suicide bombers often appear to be less educated and poorer than suicide bombers elsewhere in the world. She says there is only anecdotal evidence about this, because of the failure of Afghan authorities to adequately investigate the background of suicide bombers. But she says evidence also suggests that many Afghans recruited as suicide attackers tend to be social rejects -- people who are mentally ill, alcoholics, or even drug addicts -- who see a suicide attack as a way to redeem themselves and restore honor to their family.

But Fair concludes that the lack of video wills by Afghanistan's suicide bombers suggests that ordinary Afghans are still not willing to glorify suicide bombers as martyrs.

New medical facility opens in Ghazni province

Press Release - Source: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)

November 13, 2007 - KABUL, Afghanistan – ISAF Ghazni PRT servicemembers and local government officials attended a ribbon cutting ceremony for the new Ghazni Provincial Hospital emergency facility, recently.

"The emergency room facility took about three months to build," said Navy Lt. Jeff Ammon, Ghazni PRT project payment officer and engineer. "The project, which costs about $35,000, was a very cost effective building that has quality workmanship."

The opening ceremony also commemorated the donation provided by the Ghazni PRT of more than 84 types of critical equipment and supplies, which is worth more than $150,000.

Some of the critical equipment donated for the new emergency facility included two ambulances, pharmaceuticals, EKG equipment and emergency room equipment for both adults and infants.

Navy Lt. Keith Hoekman, Ghazni PRT medical officer, works closely with Dr. Ziagul Isfandi, the Ghazni Provincial Hospital and public health director, to assess and improve health care in the Ghazni Province.

According to Hoekman, the project not only expanded emergency care, it increased the capacity of the hospital to provide full-spectrum health care to its patients, especially care associated with pregnancy and birth.

"The purchase of the supplies and equipment, especially the four baby warmers and four baby incubators, will definitely improve the chance of survival for patients in the future," Hoekman said. "There is a high incidence of multiple births in this area. Having the capability to keep the babies warm after birth is very important."

Included with the medical supplies were multi-media and office equipment, which included laptops, printers and digital cameras.

"We provided the electronic equipment to start an educational center as part of the new facility. With internet access, the hospital staff will be able to access continuing-medical education credits online," Hoekman said.

The web cameras give Afghan medical personnel the ability to do distance learning through programs like those provided by Yale University.

"This essentially allows them to leap from third-world medicine to modern medicine," he said.

PRT medics also ensure that local doctors and health-care providers are educated on proper use of equipment through weekly medical-education lectures.

"A problem in the past is that equipment gets donated and no education follows so the equipment is never used," said Hoekman.

These classes ensure the equipment is used to its full potential.

The Ghazni Province health ministry, NGO and PRT cooperative efforts to open the new emergency facility provides permanent health care needed in the region

Private security, public perceptions

United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), 11/13/2007

Press conference by Adrian Edwards, Spokesperson for the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General and UN agencies in Afghanistan, and guest speaker Dr Susanne Schmeidl, Senior Research Fellow for SwissPeace 12 Nov 2007

COMMENT ON THE BAGHLAN ATTACK

The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan shares the grief of the entire Afghan nation at last week's bomb attack in Baghlan. That children and representatives of the people should be among the many dead and wounded shows the barbarity of those responsible. As you know, the UN Secretary-General, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Security Council have all spoken out in condemnation of this atrocity. This mission stands in unity with the entire Afghan people. We condemn those responsible. We note public statements by elements of the Taliban denying responsibility, yet seeking to exploit this attack for propaganda purposes. This is reprehensible. Anyone who claims to care for civilian lives should want to see this attack fully investigated and those responsible identified and brought to justice. That is the wish of this mission, and we believe it's the wish of the entire community.

NEW SCHOOLS IN EASTERN AFGHANISTAN

A key element of the development work done by the United Nations and others in Afghanistan is rebuilding the education system and getting children into schools. This year, nine new schools have been under construction in Kunar province, with the support of the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF). Six have been completed and the rest will be ready by the end of this year.

During 2006 and 2007 some 54 schools have been built in east of the country - 47 of which have been completed - others have been delayed for security reasons, but we expect them to be completed very soon.

Last week, the governor of Kunar, Mr Shalizay Deedar, inaugurated a girls' school in Kerala village in Asadabad district.

UNICEF plans to construct 26 schools in Nangarhar and 15 schools in Laghman next year. They will be also be initiating new school building programmes in Kunar and Nuristan in early 2008.

LAUNCH OF SURVEY OF PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANIES

Last week, the United Nations Working Group on the use of mercenaries produced a report on private security companies in war zones, including Afghanistan. That report was subsequently presented to the UN General Assembly for its consideration.

The issue of private security companies has been in the news recently for a number of reasons. To help your understanding of the issues in Afghanistan we are joined today by Dr Susanne Schmeidl, Senior Research Fellow for non-governmental organisation Swisspeace. Dr Schmeidl has just completed the first study of its kind in Afghanistan of private security companies, and today marks the launch of the Swisspeace report. I'll now hand over to Dr Schmeidl and we will take questions after her opening remarks.

Dr Susanne Schmeidl, Swisspeace: I would like to thank the UN for giving the opportunity to discuss this report with you. The Afghanistan case study is part of a comparative study with Angola in Africa. This importance of this study is because there is very little knowledge about the work of the private security sector, especially about its impact on the local population in the country they operate in. The study is trying to fill a gap and in many ways to give voices to the people about what they think about private security companies in their countries.

The study can be found as a hard copy on the side table and a soft copy is available on the Swisspeace website – www.swisspeace.ch

Before I share the findings, I would like to thank the Swiss government for funding this study. However, I would like to emphasise that the research was conducted independently by Swisspeace and myself. I am presenting the perceptions of the Afghan population that were collected through interviews and focus group discussions.

The first finding is that there is unease among the Afghan population that there is currently no legislation or regulation for private security companies in Afghanistan. I have to note that the regulation is currently pending before the Cabinet for approval. So the government has worked on one [private security company legislation], but it has not been passed yet. However, it is important that most of the findings in this study are influenced by the fact that there is no regulation and that there is a situation where nobody guards the guardians.

There were numerous calls during the interviews for the Afghan government to pass a regulation as soon as possible – some actually perceiving it as a weakness of the government that they have not created a regulation over the past few years. There was also disappointment with the international community and the international military establishments in not pushing harder to work with the Afghan government to pass a regulation sooner.

There was a feeling among those interviewed that without regulation this would encourage bad behaviour, bad business practices, corruption, a lack of accountability – and most importantly, people felt that without regulation there would be impunity of those working for the companies. The main recommendation of this study coming from the people of Afghanistan interviewed was that the government should fasttrack regulation. Other findings were that the lack of transparency, the lack of information and the lack of knowledge around the private security sector makes it very difficult for the population to understand who they are and what they do in the country.

This meant that many Afghans were unable to distinguish the private security sector from the international armed forces, from their own Afghan National Police and Afghan National Army, and that general confusion prevails. Because of the lack of information and transparency it was also very difficult for many interviewees to understand that private security could be a legitimate business in Afghanistan. And because of the lack of information around the private security sector, there are many fears voiced by Afghan civil society and the local population interviewed that potentially private security firms could become havens for local strongmen trying to preserve their militia forces. The latter was even considered as contributing to insecurity in Afghanistan - which is the next finding. While it was acknowledged that private security companies provided security for those who they guarded – international actors, as well as Afghan businessmen who are all producing a very positive impact in Afghanistan, there was a feeling that they do not help the security of ordinary people.

Some of the focus group discussions even raised the issue that in neighbourhoods where there are a lot of private security companies, people felt increased insecurity because of arms in the hands of many people, attracting potentially insurgent and criminal activities performed by some of the private security staff.

The positive finding was that those interviewed acknowledged that there was a potential contribution to the Afghan labour market in terms of employment, by providing jobs for former mujahedeen fighters; former militia fighters and skilled Afghan workers. For this positive contribution to the Afghan labour market to stay positive, there was a call for very transparent hiring practices, for adequate training, for capacity building, for good salaries, as well as appropriate supervision and monitoring of the staff. Training was emphasised over and over again and that it should be improved as that could be a very positive contribution to the Afghan labour market. When the guards leave they could potentially find jobs with the Afghan security forces.

Because of all those findings – which are mainly linked to the lack of transparency, lack of information flow, lack of awareness amongst the Afghan population of the private security sector, but above all, the lack of a regulation – the study appeals to everybody – the private security industry, international actors, Afghan government. They should work together to improve this problem and to work on transparency and improve knowledge of private security firms and above all – fast-track private security regulation to assist in changing this negative perception that has prevailed so far to potentially become positive.

This summarises the key findings. There is more information in the study itself. The study also contains an overview of the private security sector, of the part that knowledge is available for. It also provides an overview of the legislation process. I apologise that currently this study is only available in English. Thank you.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

IRNA (translated from Dari): Please tell us when you conducted this research study, including some statistics and also tell us which groups of people you interviewed about private security companies?

Swisspeace: The majority of this research was conducted over a three-week period in March and the focus group discussions were conducted through May and June. It is a very good question. Direct interviews were conducted with thirty-three individuals which came from the government, the international community, civil society, international military establishment and very few private security firms themselves – their were only two in the study because the study's aim was to get the views of the people. In the focus group discussions, of which there were seven involving about 115 individuals both men and women and both young and old, the percentage of women participating was about 20 percent.

Their were three focus groups in Kabul - one involved NGO leaders, intellectuals from university and the media, one involved specifically young leaders within the communities, and one provided a random selection of individuals from [central Kabul neighbourhood] Shar-e-naw and also from Logar. So it was mixed group.

There were two focus groups in the south, both in Kandahar, but one group involved participants from Helmand. There were two in the south-east of Afghanistan, one in Khost and one in Paktya. This indeed limits the study to the east, south-east and the Kabul area. There is nothing from more central, northern and western Afghanistan. So we admit that this is a limited survey. And thank you for asking this question because my work becomes more transparent itself.

Roz news agency (translated from Dari): The government of Afghanistan has repeatedly expressed that these private security companies are one of the causes of insecurity in Afghanistan. What do you think about this?

Swisspeace: All I can is to repeat the findings of the study. As a private security company is a private sector service, the security provided goes to the clients of those companies. So, while the security is very much targeted at clients and while there was a perception among the people interviewed that they did not contribute to the security of the general population, I would make the argument that further research is needed to understand fully how much they contribute to insecurity in the country. But clearly, unregulated environments contribute to many problems. So, again I emphasise that within a regulated environment the positive effects may be more visible. Because it could give clear rules about who can or cannot participate in private companies.

BBC (translated from Dari): I have two questions. Dr Susanne you said that there is no regulation on security companies, but recently the Ministry of Interior closed down two security companies saying they did not have licenses. In your view, based on what laws were these two companies shut down? My second question is for Adrian Edwards. Are such security companies providing security for UN offices in Kabul and in the provinces? If yes, then why has UNAMA not paid attention to this fact and why isn't the UN using the government security institutions to provide security for its offices?

Swisspeace: On the regulation, I will give you the knowledge that I have, but it is better for you to check it with the government as well. As far as I understand, the Ministry of Interior asked private security companies, operating in Afghanistan to send a set of information to the ministry to obtain temporary licenses until the regulation was officially passed. So the temporary licensing is very possible, but I will tell you again to check it with the government itself because maybe there were inconsistencies in the information presented. I encourage you to talk to the Ministry of Interior. The only information that I have is that of the about 90 companies that may be in existence in Afghanistan only 35 hold these temporary licenses. But you should verify those figures with the Ministry of Interior.

UNAMA: On your second question, I don't have information about contractual details for security among the various UN agencies and offices in the country. But let me say this: The United Nations operates on a principle that the host government is responsible for the security of UN staff and premises. In Afghanistan, where the security institutions are still being rebuilt, there are obviously dilemmas related to whether the host government is able to provide necessary security. What we do is work with government security institutions to develop and build the necessary capacity for future security needs related to the UN and diplomatic community.

Pajhwok (translated from Dari): In your survey, did you include the following: violations committed by security companies, like the incident in Zabul where they arrested and used physical violence, the fact that the establishment of security companies has boosted the arms business in the country and subsequently slowed the DDR [Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration] process, and as the Ministry of Interior says, these companies strengthen government opponents?

Swisspeace: As I noted before, Zabul was not part of the study. But there are anecdotes told by those interviewed about abuses from members of private security companies. On the issue of arms and the arms market, it is clearly an area that needs far more research, but I will tell you what came out of this study. One of the recommendations is that when one thinks of the regulation of private security firms, one should particularly pay attention to how arms can be obtained legally for those to use in those firms because there is likely a problem with how arms are obtained. As with links to the DDR process it is very difficult to establish causality. I think more research would need to be conducted into those linkages. So clearly there is a link but where the blame lies needs to be understood further.

Follow-up question (translated from Dari): The Ministry of Interior says that they did not issue their weapons, that these arms are not legal and that the weapons have not been imported. Taking into consideration that around 62 companies employ from 500 to 1,000 personnel, people say that these weapons have been obtained from the black market and that the weapons belong to the Ministry of Defence. How could you say there is no link between the DDR process and security companies?

Swisspeace: I did say that there was a link and I did say that there should be a part of the regulation to consider how arms can be obtained legally. What I said, as a researcher, is that before I go out there and say what influences what, more research need to be done. Indeed the very likely process is that the people who come to work for security companies already come armed. It is also true that many armed people did find employment in the private security sector. What I was trying to say is that before we start blaming or saying who is responsible you really need to consider more. Was this because the DDR process to begin with didn't work properly and that they went away to be employed by private security firms? That is what I am trying to say, I am a researcher so I am very careful about the statements I make. One of the recommendations of the study as well is that there should be potential for more collaboration between the private security sector and the security sector reform process, particularly DDR to make it very transparent about having fighters that have undergone the DDR process seeking employment. I think there is a lot of improvement again that can be made in terms of cooperation and transparency.

Freelance: You talked a lot about regulations and need for a regulatory framework. I am wondering if you could talk a little bit about the legitimate role of the security agencies, especially vis-à-vis the use of private security firms by the international forces and the government forces. What are your views on the use of private security firms? And another short question, you mentioned a range of 18,500 to 28,000 for the number of employees in these private security companies - why is there such a wide range?

Swisspeace: The reason why we can only estimate between 18,500 to 28,000 individuals potentially working with the private security sector is to do with problems with information flow and transparency. This figure was constructed by interviewing several people, and best estimates were made. Frankly speaking I would say that nobody knows exactly how many people are employed within the private security sector, but this is probably the best estimate that can be made at this point of time. In terms of what they do, I can provide you with what I know in the areas they are working. As I noted earlier, the private security sector works mainly with the international community and secondarily with Afghan businessmen and for the Afghan private sector. The reason for using private security is because in an insecure environment, as I think we all agree exists in Afghanistan, outsiders coming to Afghanistan with not so much knowledge about the country often need security to perform their services for the country. So a certain set of the international community, embassies and certain international contractors – not all, but a certain set – would not be here if they could not have private security working for them.

Based on the limited information that is available to me from the interviews, private security companies work in logistics support functions for the military. Some of them also provide protection for compounds in the south and south-east to the military. There is also a function of training and instruction of the Afghan National Police and the Afghan National Army which is performed by private security companies. So, the answer is yes, they are working in those functions, I have very limited information because again there is a lack of transparency, so that is exactly what I can tell you from our findings, nothing more. However, this is different from Iraq. Private security companies do not perform active combat duties in Afghanistan. That is an important difference that needs to be understood between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Radio Killid (translated from Dari): For the last one and half years we have been repeatedly hearing different cases about these private security companies, and the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Interior have all talked about the need for regulation, but still we do not have it. Recently the US Senate passed a Bill after they were faced with a case with Blackwater in Iraq. It was said there that security companies committing offences in Iraq can be investigated only by international authorities such as United States, not by the host country itself. Does this not mean that they are given much more freedom and how do you see this in terms of human rights violations? What does the UN think about this?

UNAMA: That is a pretty broad question and a little bit beyond the scope of today's press conference. I will not comment on what the US Congress may have decided, but we do however support what has been said today, which is that there has to be accountability and transparency. There needs to be better knowledge about what the security companies are legitimately doing, as well as what they are doing that needs correction, control, and management. Above all there is a need for legislation that can be enforced.

United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan
Spokesperson's Office

Opinion: What next after Swat?

Dawn 12 November 2007, By Adil Zareef

AS the western capitals sheepishly wake up to the dynamics of the emergency the people of Swat — like their compatriots in Waziristan — have been subjected to the worst kind of state terror and brutalities of the (state-sponsored) Taliban who have now been ‘rewarded’ with a truce dictated by the militants and ‘approved’ by the caretaker NWFP government, headed by a former Wapda chairman, whose only distinction to win this position was to toe the federal government’s line on the Kalabagh dam.

While civil society members, the legal fraternity and legitimate political forces feel the ire of the state apparatus, the leaders of radical parties (foremost amongst them Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s JUI) have been mandated to broker the dubious deal.

As the Musharraf regime clumsily grappled with the legal challenge to his presidential nomination, he trained his guns on the idyllic valley of Swat to justify his edict. By now the antics of Mullah Fazlullah have been well-documented like his predecessor’s — Mullah Sufi Mohammad. A creation of the state, from 1994 onwards he surfaced every summer at the height of the tourist season, with his ragtag army of militants to demand ‘nifaz-i-sharia’ in the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (Pata).

The symbiotic relationship between the powerful timber mafia, the Taliban militants and some agencies involved in timber and narco-trafficking is an open secret. Tourism, the mainstay of the once lovely valley, poses a threat to the unfettered control of the virgin forests and mineral resources by this unholy nexus that has successfully served to undercut all conservation and development efforts of the neglected region for tourism as it checks their criminal supremacy.

It is ironical that like their predecessors in Afghanistan, the Taliban first destroyed vestiges of the rich cultural heritage of Gandhara and are now brazenly denuding the mostly protected forests of Matta, Malam Jabba, Nek Pekhel, Kabal and Marghazar in connivance with the powerful timber mafia and local officials. In the atmosphere of militancy, the forest departments have abandoned their duties, ceding to the ruthless militants and the timber mafia who carry on this nefarious duty unchecked.

As in the case of Waziristan, where the state had a free hand in creating unrest in the name of the Sharia, the same game was repeated in Swat. For months, a buildup of heavy and sophisticated ammunition for the state-sponsored insurgency in the area was witnessed. Reports of indiscriminate massacres started pouring in. Thousands of girls were taken out of school with Taliban-style threats being made against education in the entire district. Women’s mobility was restricted and men forced to grow beards. Barber shops, video and audio businesses were blown up to create unrest and fear.

With the increase in suicide attacks on security personnel and check posts, Maulana Fazlullah’s forces began taking control of several tehsils in the district so effortlessly that it was too good to be true for the militants. The total surrender of the security apparatus to this unruly mob appeared as being scripted to the minutest detail.

The grisly slaughter of the security personnel by the mercenaries, reportedly the Uzbeks and Tajiks, (allegedly transported for these missions) in both Waziristan and Swat needs to be investigated by international human rights organisations and experts. Atrocities on the country’s citizens were choreographed to attract international scorn for Pashtuns (Taliban) and their eventual massacre has become an intolerable practice that simply should not carry on.

The Pashtuns find themselves in a bind. It is being impressed upon western allies in this ‘war against terror’ that Pukhtunkhwa is a breeding ground for terrorists, the Pashtuns are all religious extremists and that the situation could be best handled by none other than the ‘indispensable ally’ Musharraf.

The Mullah-Military Alliance (MMA) has played a key role in furthering this agenda in the province. Access to these areas by the independent media was restricted by the state to prevent the truth from coming out. An uninterrupted supply of ammunition to these areas was ensured and the militants were trained to carry out operations accordingly — playing with the lives of scores of innocent people and risking the lives and credibility of the Pakistani security forces.

It is saddening that the ‘democratic West’ seems to have bought Pakistan’s military-led government’s excuse of fighting the ‘war against terror’. The ground reality is the opposite: the militants have been given a ‘free turf’ in the NWFP as they consolidate their hold. Also, despite all the security at its disposal, the government is abandoning one region after another.

It also raises questions regarding the whole exercise of ‘emergency’ as the axe has fallen on the most ‘liberal, secular, democratic and educated’ sections of Pakistan. On the western front the most ‘radical, violent, diabolical and sinister’ forces have been given a free hand to assemble and broker a so-called truce. The most shameful part of this is the release and rewarding of Maulana Sufi Mohammad by the provincial government. This man is responsible for transporting thousands of innocent Pashtuns across Afghanistan for jihad to their inevitable death — while he himself fled the war zone.

He needs to be tried as a war criminal and his gang of wicked Taliban radicals should be treated with a strong hand. The appeasement and reward of radical criminals reflects negatively on the so-called ‘enlightened moderation’ of the military junta and also its western sponsors. Both have lost the moral high ground, and all double speak about the ‘merits of emergency’ amounts to hoodwinking world public opinion. The end result of this mayhem would be the total, irreversible loss of a once idyllic state and it precious environment which will take ages to find its way out of the abyss that it has plunged into.adilzareef@yahoo.com

[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.]