In this bulletin:

• President Karzai approves major development project for Afghanistan
• US General: Afghan Bombs Came From Iran
• India urges world community not to underestimate resurgent Afghan Taleban
• Croatia donates 1,000 Kalashnikovs to Afghanistan
• Nine US-led coalition soldiers wounded in Taliban ambush in Afghanistan
• Overhaul of Afghan Police Is New Priority
• Afghan Police Close Down More Private Security Firms
• Coalition forces 'are fighting a lost cause against the Taliban'
• Bleak prospects face millions of refugees on return to Afghanistan
• Harper reloads with crime ultimatum
• Japan opposition ramps up pressure over military missions
• Pakistan plans all-out war on militants
• What's at stake
• "Difficult, But Not Impossible" – Khalilzad
  

President Karzai approves major development project for Afghanistan

“Afghanistan on the Path to Development”, is a major development project initiated by President Hamid Karzai to uplift the economic status of the people of Afghanistan. The Project has now reached implementation stage by the Ministry of Rural Development. This ten-year project is expected to provide 2.1 million employment opportunities and will generate about $ 2 billion income.

The project is meant to create market for rural products and support the small and large entrepreneurs.

In a meeting at the Presidential Palace this morning, Rural Minister Ehsan Zia did a comprehensive presentation of the project, which will boost the economy and provide employment at the district levels. “Afghanistan last year imported large quantities of chicken eggs and meat, cooking oil, disposable dishes, tomato paste, salt, blankets, matches, soaps and many other things that we can produce in Afghanistan and even export out.”, the minister continued, “Afghanistan is the second largest producer of carpet in the region, but this position is wrongly given to another country since the product goes out under and through a different country”.

The minister stated that we can export our carpets via our own ports, thus supporting our carpet industry and providing job opportunities.

Minister Zia called the move important in empowering the villages and can help improve the quality of the local products. The move will also help reduce poppy cultivation as an important alternative.

The total cost for the Project is estimated to $ 585 million which will also provide credit loans to different groups with a special incentive to those with the best performance. Minister Zia concluded by urging for coordination among relevant ministries to implement the project.

President Karzai approved the Project as an important tool for economic growth and hoped it will result in considerable improvement in people’s life.

The President instructed Rural Development Minister to work with the Ministry of Finance for the budget and launch a pilot Project in initial phase in eight provinces.

In presence to the meeting were Senior Minister Hedayat Amin Arsala, Commerce Minister Mohammad Amin Farhang, Interior Minister Zarar Ahmad Muqbil, Agriculture Minister Ubadullah Ramin, Women’s Minister Husn Bano Ghazanfar, Economic Minister Jalil Shams, Senior Economic Advisor Eshaq Naderi, Deputy Finance Minister Wahidullah Shahrani, Financial Advisor Yasin Usmani and Head of Kabul University and Presidential Advisor on Mines and Industries Abdul Rahman Ashraf.

Presidential Spokesman’s Office – Kabul

US General: Afghan Bombs Came From Iran

By FISNIK ABRASHI – KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The top NATO commander in Afghanistan alleged Thursday that the Iranian military was involved in a shipment of sophisticated explosive devices intercepted by his troops in western Afghanistan last month.

U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeill, the commander of NATO's 40,000-strong International Security Assistance Force, said the convoy intercepted on Sept. 5 contained "a number of advanced technology improvised explosive devices."

"This weapons convoy clearly, geographically, originated in Iran," McNeill told reporters in Kabul.

"It is difficult for me to conceive that this convoy could have originated in Iran and come to Afghanistan, without at least the knowledge of the Iranian military," he said, without providing details of the evidence underlying the accusation.

McNeill told The Washington Post last month that the Sept. 5 shipment contained devices similar to those used in Iraq, where the U.S. military has accused Iran of supplying Shiite insurgents with the materials and know-how to produce explosively formed penetrators, which send slugs of molten copper through vehicle armor.

Iran disputes the accusations, saying they are part of a broad campaign against Iran, which is locked in a showdown with the U.S. over issues including Iraq and the Islamic Republic's nuclear aspirations. Iran says it makes no sense for a Shiite country to assist the fundamentalist Sunni Taliban, who killed 11 Iranians including consular officials and a journalist in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif in 1998.

The insurgents in Afghanistan have increased their use of roadside bombs this year to target foreign and Afghan troops as part of a strategy to weaken the government of President Hamid Karzai and force foreign troops to leave the country.

Military officials and analysts say Taliban militants have long copied Iraqi insurgents' tactics, but suicide and roadside bombs here have never been anywhere near as deadly or sophisticated as those in Iraq, where armor-piercing explosively formed projectiles have killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers.

McNeill did not provide any further details about the type of weapons intercepted and whether those devices have been used against NATO or Afghan troops here.

Afghanistan is going through its most violent year since the ouster of the Taliban regime in the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. More than 5,200 people — mostly militants — have died this year as a result of fighting, according to an Associated Press count based on official figures.

McNeill said that between 20 percent and 40 percent of the insurgency is financed by drug money, which also has a corrupting influence in the government.

Afghanistan has doubled its opium production over the past two years. Poppy plants now grow on 477,000 acres of Afghan land and account for 93 percent of the world's opium output, according to the United Nations.

The farm value of Afghanistan's annual crop is about $1 billion and the street-sale value of the heroin produced from it is more than $3 billion, the U.N. says.

India urges world community not to underestimate resurgent Afghan Taleban

Text of report by Indian news agency PTI

United Nations, 16 October: Warning the international community against underestimating the ferocity of Taleban and Al-Qa'idah resurgence in Afghanistan, India has favoured a robust political solution and a strong domestic military response to meet the challenges of terrorism, including its nexus with drug trafficking.

As terrorism cannot be fought piecemeal, the international community must provide "appropriate responses," including security enforcement and economic and developmental strategies that rapidly bring the benefits of governance and development to people in the worst-affected districts, India's UN Ambassador Nirupam Sen told the Security Council.

Intervening in the discussion on situation in Afghanistan, Sen said the central task involves addressing, "in the face of insecurity created by vicious terrorist violence," the socioeconomic challenges that are the result of decades of strife, destruction and privation.

The ch! allenge before the international community, he said yesterday, is on the one hand to ensure security while helping resolve these problems, and on the other, to transform the high-level political commitments into operational strategies and concrete outcomes on the ground.

"Only if we succeed in all three tasks can we create the conditions that engender greater national ownership of security, reconstruction and developmental processes in the long-term," Sen said, adding that it is an "unavoidable reality" that it is only in the long-term that we can rebuild national institutions destroyed over the decades.

Sen said the collective goal must be to build upon the significant successes recorded so far and remain unaffected by short-term developments while recognizing the fact that the road ahead is long.

"We must redouble our political and economic commitment to help Afghanistan over the medium- to long-term, and ensure that our determination is unshaken by short-term developments," he emphasized.

With regard to addressing the developmental challenge, Sen said India believes that the good work being undertaken by the international community in Afghanistan can only be sustained in the long-term if it invests in developing Afghan human resources. For this, a multi-pronged approach is required - investing in rebuilding infrastructure, generating employment and progressively transferring the necessary skills and managerial authority to the Afghan people so that they can take on the ownership of these projects, he added.

Sen underlined India's "unflinching" commitment to the rebuilding and development of Afghanistan.

The Indian assistance programme, which has been in place since the Berlin Conference, has now reached 750m US dollars. Of this total pledge, India has already disbursed around 300m US dollars in the implementation of various assistance projects since 2002, he told the delegates. The projects cover the gamut of activities, rangin! g from capacity-building projects to infrastructure-creation and reconstruction.

Sen said India has trained more than 2,700 Afghan citizens in India. Since 2006, it has annually trained 500 Afghan public officials in short-term courses and 500 Afghan students at university-level courses.

India is also implementing a capacity-development programme in public administration, in partnership with the UNDP, to depute 30 Indian civil servants to assist in various Afghan ministries. In addition, India is including a strong capacity-development component in all its infrastructure projects in Afghanistan, Sen said. Apart from completion of ongoing mega-infrastructure projects, India is now simultaneously focusing upon small development projects. These include activities that require the participation of local communities. Such projects are aimed at providing the most direct "peace dividend" to communities that are yet to see the benefits of development.

India has worked to align its assistance programmes with A fghan priorities, Sen stressed, saying the projects are being implemented in close coordination with Afghan stakeholders, focusing particularly on local implementation, management and ownership of assets.

Croatia donates 1,000 Kalashnikovs to Afghanistan

Text of report by Croatian newspaper Vjesnik on 16 October

[Report by M. F.: "Croatia Donates 1,000 Kalashnikov Rifles to Afghanistan" p2]

Zagreb: Croatia has donated to Afghanistan military equipment consisting of 1,000 AK-47 rifles (Kalashnikovs) and 300,000 rounds of ammunition, the Defence Ministry said in a statement.

"Croatia has donated military equipment to Afghanistan in response to the Afghan government's appeal for help in equipping its security forces - the army and police," the MORH's [Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia] statement reads. The donation is for the Afghan police force. It was organized with NATO's help, and shipped on a Ukrainian transport aircraft for transporting donated arms rented by the Canadian Defence Ministry. The MORH said that the donation was part of the international community's efforts to establish and strengthen the Afghan government institutions.

"The goal is to provide support to the institutions of the Afghan government to enable them to succes! sfully establish control over Afghanistan's entire territory," Captain Robert Hranj, head of the MORH's department for NATO and the Partnership for Peace, said. Hranj was present when the military equipment for Afghanistan was loaded on to the aircraft.

Nine US-led coalition soldiers wounded in Taliban ambush in Afghanistan

KABUL, Afghanistan - Nine U.S.-led coalition troops were wounded Thursday after the Taliban used heavy machine guns and rocket propelled grenades to ambush a patrol in southern Afghanistan.

A coalition statement says the attack took place near Kandahar city on Wednesday. The patrol was able to repel the attack using small arms fire.

The statement says none of the injuries are serious and there were no insurgent casualties. A Canadian military spokesman in Kandahar says it's not believed any Canadian troops were among the wounded.

In the east, police say a roadside bomb on a police vehicle close to the Pakistani border killed an officer and wounded three others. Taliban attacks against police have increased this year, with over 600 killed in militant attacks.

More than 5,200 people have died this year as a result of fighting, according to an Associated Press count based on official figures, the deadliest year since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.

There are currently 2,300 Canadian troops serving in southern Afghanistan, mostly based in Kandahar.

Overhaul of Afghan Police Is New Priority

By DAVID ROHDE – NY Times

American military officials are carrying out a sweeping $2.5 billion overhaul of Afghanistan’s police force that will include retraining the country’s entire 72,000-member force and embedding 2,350 American and European advisers in police stations across the country.

The new effort is a vast expansion of the current American program and is the third significant attempt to bolster the country’s feeble police force since the American-led invasion in 2001.

Improving the police force is a key to defeating the Taliban and salvaging the credibility of the central government, which is widely viewed as corrupt, according to Western officials.

Maj. Gen. Robert W. Cone took over the Afghan effort in July after revamping the training of American troops bound for Iraq and Afghanistan. “I want in every district in this country the same kind of full-court press,” the general said in a recent interview in Kabul. “I want to break the corruption.”

Some current and former American and Afghan officials warn that corruption, drug trafficking and rising lawlessness pose graver threats to the government than even the Taliban.

Without a serious Afghan-led drive to end the corruption, they say, any effort to improve the police force may well fail — and many hundreds of millions of dollars will have been wasted. But that is something President Hamid Karzai has so far largely failed to carry out.

One example they point to is Mr. Karzai’s January appointment of Izatullah Wasifi, an Afghan-American convicted of selling heroin in Las Vegas 20 years ago, as the head of the government’s new anticorruption body. In news interviews Mr. Wasifi, whose father supported Mr. Karzai against the Taliban, has called the conviction a youthful mistake.

Also, a widespread public perception exists that Mr. Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is involved in drug trafficking. So much so that Western officials say they have long urged Mr. Karzai to have his brother leave the country, though they acknowledge that there is no definitive proof of wrongdoing.

Rooting out the corruption in the force is a gargantuan task. After leaving police training to Germany for the first two years after the fall of the Taliban, the United States has steadily increased what it spends on the task.

In 2005, the military took over from the State Department and spent more than $2 billion on equipment and increased pay for the police. Now, entire police units will be pulled out of districts, trained as a group for eight weeks and then sent back in a top-to-bottom effort to eliminate corruption.

Police corruption has contributed to Afghanistan’s becoming the world’s largest producer of opium, according to United Nations officials. Last year, after another bumper crop, it produced 93 percent of the world’s supply.

The international effort to train a new police force, meanwhile, has been beset by infighting, inconsistency and a slow pace. For the first two and a half years after the fall of the Taliban, no systematic police-training program existed outside of the capital, Kabul, according to American and Afghan officials.

The United States focused on training a new multiethnic army and paid little attention to the need for a capable police force. Germany pledged to train a new force but sent only 40 police advisers to Kabul.

In 2004, the State Department hired a private contractor to train the Afghan police. Afghan officials complained that the training program was only two weeks long. The State Department said there was an urgent need to train large numbers of police.

In April 2005, the Pentagon took over the training. At first, it dispatched 300 advisers to the provinces, a small fraction of the 2,350 it now says are needed.

Some Afghan and American officials have complained that the Defense Department is trying to militarize the police and use the officers to fight the Taliban.

Military officials say that lightly armed Afghan police officers need strengthening. Across the country, the military can drive the Taliban out of areas, but the police cannot hold those gains.

The scope of the challenge that American officials face was on display during a recent military operation in Paktia Province. In a village outside the city of Gardez, Afghan police officers monitored by American trainers searched mud-brick houses for weapons.

As they moved from compound to compound, one eager young Afghan policeman searched diligently. Another was caught trying to steal a pair of binoculars by an American adviser.

“Hey,” said Maj. Craig Blando, plucking the binoculars from the young officer’s chest. “These are theirs.”

In January, General Cone ordered 800 American soldiers to shift from training the Afghan Army to training the country’s beleaguered police. Major Blando, a native of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, leads a team of eight American police trainers based in the town of Zurmat.

As in other areas, the police were far below staffing levels, with only 24 officers patrolling an entire district, the Afghan equivalent of an American county. Plans exist to post 108 policemen in the district, Major Blando said.

He and other trainers said progress was possible and Afghan recruits quickly “catch on” when closely supervised; but, they said, far more trainers are needed.

“It’s a good mission,” said Lt. Steven Amandola, a 26-year-old Army reservist and police officer in the Bronx. “But it’s going to take time.”

Evidence of high-level corruption, though, was commonplace. During a meeting between the top American and Afghan security officials in southeastern Afghanistan last month, American officials said a survey had found only 1,200 officers at work in an area where Afghan commanders claimed 3,300 officers were serving. Collecting the salaries of nonexistent “ghost officers” has been a long-running practice of senior Afghan police commanders.

General Cone said progress was being made. Long-awaited changes are already under way, including an increase in the pay of the Afghan police, the depositing of paychecks directly into officers’ bank accounts and the reduction in the size of the force’s bloated senior officer corps.

After months of wavering, Mr. Karzai named a new attorney general and allowed the removal of 11 of 14 senior police commanders that international officials said were involved in drug trafficking or corruption.

Ronald E. Neumann, the former United States ambassador to Afghanistan, said bold action, not more half-measures, was needed from both Afghan and Western officials. Decades of war and insecurity have warped the country’s culture, he said. Unsure about the future, many Afghans believe they must look out for their families first and take what they can.

“You have a corruption of the entire culture of Afghanistan by 25 years of war,” Mr. Neumann said. “It needs reform, but it has to be societal as well as juridical, and that takes time.”

Afghan Police Close Down More Private Security Firms

Associated Press October 17, 2007 10:44 a.m.

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Police officials closed two more private Afghan security firms Wednesday, part of a crackdown on the lucrative but largely unregulated security industry that Afghan officials say may be behind a rise in kidnappings.

Authorities recovered more than 80 weapons during raids on Falcon Security Co. and Millet Wednesday, police said.

The closures follow raids on two other Afghan security companies last week. Afghan officials say illegitimate security firms are carrying out such crimes as murder, kidnappings and robberies. Police have said they will close down more than a dozen other security firms.

The Interior Ministry said 59 Afghan and international security companies have registered with the government. The government is proposing new rules to tighten control over such firms, including some Western companies, amid concerns they intimidate Afghans, show disrespect to local security forces and don't cooperate with authorities.

The crackdown echoes efforts by authorities in Iraq to rein in private security contractors often accused of acting with impunity. Blackwater USA guards protecting a U.S. Embassy convoy in Baghdad are accused of killing 17 Iraqi civilians in a September shooting, an incident that enraged the Iraqi government.

Coalition forces 'are fighting a lost cause against the Taliban'

By MATTHEW HICKLEY Dailymail.co.uk17th October 2007

Coalition forces in Afghanistan face defeat because they lack a coherent plan or sufficient troop numbers while the Nato alliance is increasingly fractured, a scathing report claims.

British, American and other allied forces are 'fighting a lost cause' because they cannot stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda using neighbouring Pakistan as a safe haven, supply base and recruiting ground, experts warn.

Commanders on the ground are crippled by a lack of troops and helicopters, forcing them to rely on air strikes which are causing more and more civilian casualties and destroying support among ordinary Afghans and around the world.

The damning assessment is contained in a report published by the highly-respected defence think-tank Chatham House.

It will bolster mounting concerns over the Government's handling of the war in Afghanistan, where some 7,000 British personnel are locked in the fiercest military campaign the UK has fought since the Second World War.

The Chatham House study accuses the allies of failing to draw up a 'coherent strategy' combining counter-insurgency operations against the Taliban, counter-terrorism against Al Qaeda and reconstruction efforts to improve the poverty-stricken lives of ordinary Afghans.

From the very start in 2001 the allied goals were confused and divided, it claims, with America favouring a quick invasion to topple the Taliban while European countries wanted more concentration on

rebuilding and security.

As a result it was never clear how the modest numbers of troops involved were supposed to rebuild Afghanistan, and the international community 'effectively embarked upon a mission without a strategy'.

Although the Taliban was toppled in the capital Kabul six years ago, the allies have failed to build on that success.

The report, written by Chatham House fellow Timo Noetzel and Sibylle Scheipers of Oxford University, claims Nato forces are now left trying to defeat the Taliban in combat while carrying out reconstruction, counter-narcotics operations and training Afghan police and Army all at the same time.

Several Nato allies refuse even to let their troops take part in combat. The fundamental principle of Nato solidarity is 'on the line', the report warns, and Nato looks 'increasingly fragile'.

The study also accuses the West of failing to tackle tribal warlords and their links to Afghanistan's massive heroin trade, as well as the Afghan government's 'evident linkages' to the illegal trade.

In the Commons yesterday Defence Secretary Des Browne claimed Afghanistan remained 'a noble cause'.

He told MPs the allies had made 'significant progress' since 2001 but Afghanistan remained 'fragile' and its problems would require 'decades of hard work'.

Mr Browne echoed the report's concerns over Nato, saying that some European allies were 'frankly quite disappointing' in their contribution in Afghanistan.

• They have endured one of the most dangerous tours of duty of any British Army unit since the Second World War and nine of their number never left Afghanistan alive.

But yesterday the soldiers of the Royal Anglian Regiment returned to their base in England after six months fighting the Taliban.

In a revealing insight into the ongoing Afghanistan nightmare, they told welcoming relatives that the fighting on their recent tour was the worst it had been since the war began six years ago.

Two soldiers from the regiment's 1st Battalion have been spoken of as possible Victoria Cross recipients. One of the pair, Lance Corporal Oliver Ruecker, 21, was among those reunited with family at Pirbright in Surrey yesterday.

The other prospective VC, Captain David Hicks, 26, died after refusing morphine for fatal shrapnel wounds.

At the homecoming parade was actor Ross Kemp, who had been filming in Afghanistan with the regiment, nicknamed 'the Vikings'. "I got to know some of the lads really well," he said. "I'm incredibly proud of them."

Bleak prospects face millions of refugees on return to Afghanistan

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Abdul Qahir thought it was time to go home.

After the Taliban toppled from power, Qahir packed up his family and all they could take with them and crossed the border back into his Afghan homeland. Qahir, 57, had spent 19 years in Pakistan, most of them in a sprawling refugee camp.

He said he was very optimistic as he passed through the mountains and saw his native country stretched out before him. But six years later, he says he is "hopeless and disappointed."

Qahir's first home back in Afghanistan was another refugee camp in the Zhari district of Kandahar province. Even the help of international aid organizations was not enough for him, his wife and four children. "Sometimes we used to sleep hungry," he says.

Qahir moved his family into Kandahar city but working as a labourer, the only job he could find, he's unable to pay the rent. He needs help, he says. "Otherwise we will have to go back and get refuge in Pakistan."

Millions of Afghans fled their homeland after the 1979 Soviet invasion. Many more left after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, when Afghanistan fell into civil war and then under the influence of the Taliban.

Since the collapse of the Taliban in December 2001, the UN High Commission for Refugees estimates that more than three million Afghans have returned from Pakistan. More than 324,000 have crossed the border this year alone.

The agency estimates that about two million continue to live at 85 refugee camps throughout Pakistan.

Now Pakistani officials, citing concerns that Taliban insurgents use the border camps as a base to attack NATO and Afghan forces inside Afghanistan, have ordered four large camps along the border to close.

Yet Afghanistan doesn't seem to want the refugees either. Sayed Amir, 41, works for the UN refugee agency that runs the camp in the Zhari district of Kandahar province.

He says there is fear in government that insurgents will take advantage of the return, moving as refugees into the very heart of the Taliban movement to reinforce the insurgency while living off international aid.

"The Afghan government was scared of that, because Afghan government thought if they get refuge once in Zhari, it can create a lot of problems for the nation," he says.

"That is one of the reasons that most of the refugees were sent back to Pakistan."

The vast majority of Afghan refugees living in Pakistan's camps say Afghanistan is not secure and that they will have no homes and no work if they return. They are not wrong, says Sahibo.

She and her husband, M. Akbar, rely on non-governmental organizations for all their daily needs in a refugee camp in Kandahar.

"Sometimes I must beg, sometimes I ask neighbours for leftovers to fill my young son's stomach," she says. "In the camp, all the times our eyes are in search of something."

A lack of jobs, safe drinking water, accessible health care, education and housing are what awaits returning Afghan refugees, according to a recent report by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.

Interviews with thousands of refugees and people displaced internally by fighting found chronic food shortages. More than half said they did not have access to safe drinking water.

Just four per cent of those interviewed cited security as a major issue. Only 38 per cent had a stable income, and 60 per cent were living below the poverty line of US$1 a day.

A third of those interviewed said their children were not attending school, and more than one third had at least one child working. Sahibo's husband, Akbar, says the family should never have come back from Pakistan.

"I thought that when we move towards our country everything will be all right," he says. "How long will we be living like this?"

He says he was so destitute he had to marry off his daughters. Now his nine-year-old son's future weighs heavily on his mind.

"This is the age for my son to get an education but he collects old plastic bags and old articles," Akbar says, weeping.

The UN refugee agency and other aid agencies have warned of a looming humanitarian crisis.

In April, tens of thousands of Afghan refugees were forcibly deported from Iran. Many of them are now living in refugee camps in Afghanistan.

Humanitarian agencies say they are already overwhelmed with Afghans fleeing fighting internally and refugees who have returned. There are simply not enough resources for more returnees.

"We are worried that if there is a sudden return of Afghans from the camp this may turn into a humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan," Salvatore Lombardo, a UNHCR representative in Kabul, said in a recent interview.

The Canadian Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar is co-ordinating with UN agencies to prepare for winter, when snow and rain will cut off access to many parts of rural Kandahar.

The team is not directly involved with refugee camps but the UN agencies who are have a contingency plan to ensure they have enough supplies such as food, blankets and tents, said Capt. Joanne Blais, spokeswoman for the PRT.

"We, the PRT and the UN, are trying to help the responsible department within government to make sure they have the necessary capacity to respond," Blais says.

- With files from Kandahar reporter A.R. Khan.

Harper reloads with crime ultimatum

Government won't accept amendments to bill, PM says after Liberals attempt to dodge bullet by abstaining on Throne Speech

CAMPBELL CLARK

With reports from Gloria Galloway and Brian Laghi

October 18, 2007

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper brushed past the Liberals' decision yesterday to abstain from voting on the Throne Speech, staking the government's survival on a new uncompromising stand on crime legislation.

While Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's move means the government will survive early confidence votes on its broad agenda - avoiding an immediate election campaign - Mr. Harper quickly said he would set a potential new obstacle in Mr. Dion's path.

The Prime Minister insisted his government will not accept any amendments to an omnibus crime bill that will revive a series of bills killed when he prorogued Parliament.

And Conservative sources said the new omnibus legislation will strip out some amendments that had been passed in the last session - forcing the opposition to accept at least some measures they deemed unacceptable last term.

"They have to agree to it, or we'll have an election," said Jay Hill, the Conservative government's chief whip.

Whether the new omnibus bill will truly set the government on a collision course with the opposition depends on the details - and the Prime Minister's spokesmen pointedly refused to reveal any.

That bill will be tabled today, but it is still unclear how long it will take before it reaches the stage where it would be put to a confidence vote.

A Conservative source said that one portion, on tougher sentences for gun crimes, will reflect NDP amendments the Tories had accepted in the last session, but other portions of the new bill will undo opposition amendments - daring them to back down.

Mr. Harper adopted a new, harder tone on both crime legislation and Afghanistan immediately after Mr. Dion declared Liberal MPs would abstain from voting on the Throne Speech.

Mr. Dion said his party will not vote because Canadians do not want an election, although he blasted many elements of the Throne Speech, especially the government's position on climate-change measures, and offered his own amendments.

"If they are rejected, we will do as the NDP, when it decided on Oct. 16, 2006, to abstain on the vote on the softwood lumber agreement in order to avoid causing an election," Mr. Dion said in a Commons speech.

He quoted Mr. Harper's own reasons, when he was leader of the opposition, for abstaining on a 2005 budget vote to avoid an early election, and when he was pressed in debate later by the NDP, Mr. Dion pointed to the Prime Minister and added, "It worked for him and it will work for me."

Mr. Harper then said the government will not only make its new crime bill a confidence matter that could trigger an election, but also that changes would not be allowed.

"We will be seeking timely passage of this legislation, and as is the case with confidence measures, the government will not accept amendments to the substance of these initiatives."

Opposition politicians said they will wait to see the details of the crime bill today, but charged that the Conservatives are trying to create another showdown.

After the government indicated in its Throne Speech that it would table the crime bill, both the Liberals and NDP said they did not expect a confrontation. Amended versions of most of the previous bills had been passed in various stages in the Commons, but had not yet passed through the Senate, making them law.

However, if important changes are stripped out, there will be a confrontation, they said.

"The showdown here is not a sincere effort to get legislation passed," Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale said last night. "It's obviously intended to continue the atmosphere of crisis."

The New Democrats, who had struck deals with the Tories to amend several of the predecessor crime bills, were livid.

"Obviously they have decided they want an election, they've decided they want to run that election on the crime file. They are quite prepared to sacrifice the interests of victims of crime that some of this legislation in fact would help," NDP justice critic Joe Comartin said.

"This is pure partisan politics at its worst."

Mr. Harper also hardened his tone on Afghanistan.

He indicated that his Throne Speech assertion that Canadians should remain in Afghanistan after the current mission ends in 2009 to train Afghan forces means that he wants Canadian troops to stay in the dangerous Kandahar region until 2011.

"We will continue our preferences to continue that track and we believe it should be completed by 2011," Mr. Harper said.

Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre later insisted that position is still vague, because it is unclear whether the government wants to keep a large contingent of troops in combat activities after 2009.

Even before the showdown on the crime bill, there are still several votes before the Conservative Throne Speech is approved by the Commons.

Mr. Dion tabled an amendment attacking the speech on climate change, Afghanistan, the economy and poverty, but it will not pass because the Tories and the NDP, at least, will reject it.

"An amendment that calls for us to stay longer in Afghanistan, doesn't even mention Bill C-30 [the Clean Air Act] that was supposed to be so important, calls for a big corporate tax cut and otherwise spends time congratulating their failed record isn't a serious amendment or proposal," Mr. Layton said. "They are clearly playing some kind of parliamentary game and it's frankly just sad."

The Bloc Québécois also presented a subamendment that will not pass. It calls on the government to dramatically limit its spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction and names the Liberals as culprits in the failure of Canada to meet Kyoto greenhouse-gas reduction targets.

Japan opposition ramps up pressure over military missions

TOKYO (AFP) — Japan's opposition on Thursday denounced a bill to extend support for US-led forces in Afghanistan and proposed scrapping an air mission in Iraq as well, ramping up pressure on the government.

The main opposition Democratic Party of Japan won control of one house of parliament in July and has vowed to scuttle the government's agenda until Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda calls an early general election.

Fukuda's predecessor Shinzo Abe resigned last month citing his failure to extend the naval mission supporting US-led troops in Afghanistan, which expires on November 1.

Fukuda's cabinet on Wednesday sent a new bill to parliament that would extend the mission by one year. In a bid for compromise, the bill would restrict assistance to operations only on the Indian Ocean.

Parliament is set to debate the bill next Tuesday, but the opposition immediately signalled it would not back down.

"This bill is problematic because they drew it up expecting to pass it anyway in the end," senior opposition lawmaker Kenji Yamaoka told reporters.

Fukuda's government says that Japan must play a role in international security befitting the world's second largest economy.

The opposition counters that Japan, which has been officially pacifist since defeat in World War II, should not take part in "American wars."

The Indian Ocean mission is one of two main military operations for Japan. Tokyo also flies goods and personnel from Kuwait into Iraq on behalf of the United Nations and the US-led coalition.

"The Democratic Party has always opposed the Iraq war," said the opposition party's shadow defence minister, Keiichiro Asao, after submitting a bill to the upper house to end the air mission.

"The party came to the conclusion that the mission should end because the Iraq war is against Japan's principles on national security," he said.

The opposition bill is largely symbolic as parliament, voting just before the opposition won the upper house in summer elections, extended the air mission through July 2008.

Japan also sent troops to Iraq, marking its first military deployment since World War II to a nation where fighting was ongoing. Then premier Junichiro Koizumi pulled the troops out before leaving office last year.

Pakistan plans all-out war on militants
By Syed Saleem Shahzad – Asia Times

An all-out battle for control of Pakistan's restive North and South Waziristan is about to commence between the Pakistani military and the Taliban and al-Qaeda adherents who have made these tribal areas their own.

According to a top Pakistani security official who spoke to Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity, the goal this time is to pacify the Waziristans once and for all. All previous military operations - usually spurred by intelligence provided by the Western coalition - have had limited objectives, aimed at specific

bases or sanctuaries or blocking the cross-border movement of guerrillas. Now the military is going for broke to break the back of the Taliban and a-Qaeda in Pakistan and reclaim the entire area.

The fighting that erupted two weeks ago, and that has continued with bombing raids against guerrilla bases in North Waziristan - turning thousands of families into refugees and killing more people than any India-Pakistan war in the past 60 years - is but a precursor of the bloodiest battle that is coming.

Lining up against the Pakistani Army will be the Shura (council) of Mujahideen comprising senior al-Qaeda and Taliban commanders, local clerics, and leaders of the fighting clans Wazir and Mehsud (known as the Pakistani Taliban). The shura has long been calling the shots in the Waziristans, imposing sharia law and turning the area into a strategic command and control hub of global Muslim resistance movements, including those operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"All previous operations had a different perspective," the security official told ATol. "In the past Pakistan commenced an operation when the Western coalition informed Pakistan about any particular hide-out or a sanctuary, or Pakistan traced any armed infiltration from or into Pakistan.

"However, the present battle aims to pacify Waziristan once and for all. The Pakistani Army has sent a clear message to the militants that Pakistan would deploy its forces in the towns of Mir Ali, Miranshah, Dand-i-Darpa Kheil, Shawal, Razmak, Magaroti, Kalosha, Angor Ada. The Pakistani Army is aiming to establish permanent bases which would be manned by thousands of military and paramilitary troops."

According to the security official, an ultimatum had been delivered to the militants recently during a temporary ceasefire. The army would set a deadline and give safe passage into Afghanistan to all al-Qaeda members and Taliban commanders who had gathered in Waziristan to launch a large-scale post-Ramadan operation in Afghanistan. They, along with wanted tribal warrior leaders, would all leave Pakistan, and never return.

After their departure, under the direct command and surveillance of newly appointed Vice Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani (who will replace President-elect Pervez Musharraf as Chief of Army Staff), fresh troops and paramilitary forces would be sent in to establish bases at all strategic points and disarm the local tribes. The Durand Line (the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan), would be fenced and border controls would be tightened.

The militants rejected the ultimatum.

What's at stake
A qualified estimate by intelligence officials is that Pakistani military pacification of the Waziristans would slash the capability of the Afghan resistance by 85% as well as deliver a serious setback to the Iraqi resistance.

The militants have little option but to stand and fight, rather than slip across the border or melt into the local population. Aside from the sanctuary and succor afforded them in the Waziristans, most of the fighters there are either Waziris, or from other parts of Pakistan, or foreigners. They would be unable to support themselves in Afghanistan, especially as most of the non-Waziris do not speak Pashtu - a fact that also prevents them from disappearing into the Waziristan populace.

Their presence in the Waziristans also has a direct bearing on their funding: money can be transferred through bank and non-bank channels, including the informal fund transfer system known as "hawala".

Western intelligence that has been shared with Pakistan has determined that the two Waziristans alone provide the life blood - a steady stream of fighters, supplies and funds - for the resistance in all of southeast Afghanistan, including the provinces of Ghazni, Kunar, Gardez, Paktia and Paktika, as well as for attacks on Kabul. In addition, the Waziristans supply trainers to guerrillas in the Taliban heartland of Zabul, Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan provinces.

According to intelligence sources, during Ramadan, the Taliban's entire top command, including Moulvi Abdul Kabeer, Jalaluddin Haqqani, Sirajuddin Haqqani, Nasiruddin Haqqani, and Mullah Mansoor Dadullah were in North Waziristan to launch a post-Ramadan offensive in southeast Afghanistan. The Pakistani military engaged the militants well in advance to block their offensive plan, but the same militant command is believed to still be in North Waziristan.

In addition, the town of Shawal hosts the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan’s command. The Uzbeks are trying to reorganize themselves to stage an armed revolt against the government of Uzbekistan.

There is also a Kurd presence in the area, which has a direct bearing on the US's Iraqi occupation. A small number of fresh Kurd recruits come through Iran into Waziristan, get few months' training, and then return to Iran before infiltrating Iraq to fuel insurgency in Iraqi Kurdistan against this important US ally.

"If the planned battle is successful and Waziristan is pacified, the global Islamic resistance would be back where it was in 2003, when it had fighters but no centralized command or bases to carry out organized operations, said a Pakistani security official. "As a result, the guerrilla operations were sporadic and largely ineffective."

The safety of Taliban and al-Qaeda assets in Waziristan is a matter of life and death and, therefore, the militants have devised a forward strategy to target the Pakistani cities of Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad, hoping to break the will of the Pakistani armed forces. The Pakistani military, meanwhile, is trying to break the will of the militants with ongoing bombing raids.

Underscoring the seriousness with which the military is planning for the coming battle, it is reported that Shi'ite soldiers from northern Pakistan are being sent to the Waziristans. In the past, the Pakistani Army has been plagued by desertions of Pashtun and Sunni troops who refuse to fight fellow Pashtuns or Sunnis.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Pakistan Bureau Chief, Asia Times Online.

"Difficult, But Not Impossible" - Khalilzad

National Journal Group - 10/16/2007

"We have to constantly measure our policies by whether they weaken the extremists and strengthen the moderates, and do so in such a way that doesn't have counterproductive effects. " — Zalmay Khalilzad

When the history of the post-9/11 period is written, few witnesses will have more firsthand knowledge than Zalmay Khalilzad. As a member of the National Security Council staff, he was in the White House on Sept. 11, 2001, and he had a direct role in formulating the U.S. response. Khalilzad subsequently served as ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, and he is now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. As an Afghan who immigrated to the United States as a high school student, Khalilzad is also the highest-ranking Muslim in the Bush administration.

In a recent interview with National Journal's James Kitfield, Khalilzad discussed democracy in Iraq, the Bush administration and more. Edited excerpts follow.

Q: You've had a ringside seat to one of the most tumultuous periods for U.S. foreign affairs in generations. Is it true that you think the problems in the Middle East have the potential to ignite a global conflict?
Khalilzad: I do think that, geopolitically, the future of the broader Middle East is the defining challenge of our time, in the same way that managing the balance of power in Europe and subsequently the Cold War were geopolitically the defining challenges of the 19th and 20th centuries. The broader Middle East as a region is just not normal. There are too many problems that keep it from functioning well. At the same time, Islamic civilization as a whole is going through a crisis. There's a struggle between moderates and extremists, and an argument over modernity versus tradition, that ultimately will define what it means to be Muslim.
Q: Do you believe that the crisis in the Middle East has the potential to draw regional and world powers into conflict with one another?

Khalilzad: Yes, that's why I regard this as the defining issue of our time. That doesn't mean that the solution to these problems is always, or even primarily, going to be military. Military force is important in terms of fighting terrorists. We have to go after them, because they are coming after us. But not only do we have to contain extremists, we also have to empower moderates and encourage the normalization of this region. That means addressing the problems that make the region so dysfunctional, whether by finding settlements to ongoing regional conflicts; or encouraging an evolutionary transformation of authoritarian governments in the region; or consolidating new democratic orders in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. All of that will take a long time to accomplish, which is why we need to understand the full dimensions of the challenge we are facing, and develop a comprehensive strategy to confront it.
Q: With the Bush administration perceived in much of the world as overly unilateral and militaristic, how can the United States successfully lead such collective action, or win the "war of ideas" at a time when the Muslim world is awash in anti-Americanism?

Khalilzad: I think there are really two issues there. One concerns the U.S. standing in the Islamic world. In that regard, the difficulties that we've had in Iraq have had a negative impact on our standing. No question. The second issue, however, concerns the choice of whether people want to be ruled by Islamic extremists, or else within the rule of law in societies where they have access to the media and a say in who governs them. When it comes to that war of ideas, I don't think we're losing at all.
Q: So despite the unpopularity of the messenger, the message is still compelling?

Khalilzad: What I learned from my experiences on the front lines of that struggle is that people everywhere are essentially the same in their desire for those freedoms. They know these are the ideas and values that made the great countries what they are. That's why I often talked to the Afghans and Iraqis about the difficulties that America itself had in the beginning. We have come a long way as a country, and the reason is because we remained committed to these ideas of liberty and freedom. That message is still compelling.
The challenge for us, and the rest of the world, is to figure out how best to help people who share these moderate views in their fight against the extremists, without making them appear [to be] instruments of the U.S. government. That can be a tough balancing act. We have to constantly measure our policies by whether they weaken the extremists and strengthen the moderates, and do so in such a way that doesn't have counterproductive effects.

Q: Despite all the difficulties in bringing democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, and the empowerment of extremists in some local elections, you still don't doubt the administration's "democratization" agenda?

Khalilzad: No, I still believe that is the ultimate solution to the region's problems. But sometimes when people hear U.S. officials talk about democratization, they think we mean America should attack and replace authoritarian governments with ones we'd rather see in power. That's not at all what we mean. The circumstances in Afghanistan and Iraq were unique, but this is not something that you can bring about by military means alone.
Take the transformation of the former Soviet Union. While the military was a component in containing communism and making sure it didn't expand, there were also political, ideological, economic, and informational components to that Cold War campaign and the grand coalition between the United States, Europe, and Asia that saw it through. Of course, the issues are very different in the transformation of the Middle East, but I think we need a similar grand strategy and coalition approach. The ultimate goal has to be the normalization of this region, and democratization remains the key element in getting there.

Q: How do you respond to experts who argue that the broader Middle East region may not be ready for democracy?

Khalilzad: I would say two things about that argument. First, you do need a certain set of circumstances for democracy to take root and become effective; there is no question about that. It's not just about elections. You need democratic institutions, the rule of law, and the instruments of civil society. And some of the countries in this region do start at a low level in terms of their preparation in that regard. Yet, when I hear that argument, I don't conclude that the region will never achieve a democratic transformation.
Remember, we've heard similar arguments about other regions at other times in history. When Britain was discussing leaving India in the time of decolonization, the talk in London was all about how India would never become democratic. It was supposedly not in their blood. The same argument was made about Germany, and Japan, and about Asia in general. When you look at the Islamic world, I think you also have to look at the experience of Turkey, which despite its problems has been a great democratic success story.

Q: The Bush administration likes to cite the example of South Korea, but do you believe you've laid the groundwork with the American public for a similar long-term commitment of military forces to Afghanistan and Iraq -- say, 50 years?

Khalilzad: Well, you could go to the other extreme and argue that this democratic transformation in the Middle East will happen easily and quickly, but that would be a mistake given where we are. This is a long-term enterprise. The truth is, really big things don't happen easily or quickly, and this transformation we are talking about is a huge thing! If you read [Alexis] de Tocqueville on democracy in America, he rightfully pointed out that democracies tend to be impatient. But during the very long years of the Cold War, we also showed that we can be patient. If Americans have confidence in what we are doing, and they see that we are making progress toward that goal, then I think we can be patient as a people. That's why we in the administration need to be realistic in describing to the American people the time an enterprise like this takes. Perhaps at times we have not been very good at explaining the complexity and time involved, and people thus got an impression that things would happen at a much faster pace than was realistic.
Q: For all the tactical successes of the surge in U.S. forces in Iraq, little progress had been made on the strategic goal of political reconciliation. Why do you think that's so?

Khalilzad: In my view, the Iraqis' lack of progress on the political track is due to several factors. First, the different ethnic and religious communities have very different perspectives, and the distance between those perspectives has not yet closed appreciably. Despite the fact that they are politically dominant, for instance, the Shiites of Iraq feel very insecure. Partly because the Shiites are not yet willing to share power, the Sunnis see this as a life-and-death struggle. Therefore, they have not yet been able to come up with an agreement on how to share power.
A second problem is that the issues the Iraqis are dealing with are very complex and difficult. We're talking about how to share trillions of dollars in oil revenue; how to organize themselves in terms of power-sharing between the central government and the regions; how they delineate borders in a country where Saddam purposely drew provincial borders as a way to pit the different communities against each other. A related problem is one of individual personalities. I've dealt personally with many Iraqi leaders, and as a result of their backgrounds and their experiences living under Saddam or in exile, many of them have come to view the world in very conspiratorial terms. They see conspiracies everywhere, and that makes compromise among them hard.

Q: At times doesn't it seem that some of Iraq's neighbors really are conspiring against the central government?

Khalilzad: Iraq's neighborhood is certainly another important factor in the present political stalemate. This is not a neighborhood that encourages internal reconciliation. If Iraq were an island, I think we would have seen much more progress on political reconciliation by now, even given all the difficulties. So the regional context of the Iraq problem is very important. That's why I've worked hard at the United Nations to "internationalize" the problem, and to get the United Nations itself more involved in pushing for an internal and regional reconciliation. The United Nations actually has certain advantages in that regard. So with continued American and international pressure through the United Nations, I still think political progress can be made in Iraq. That's vital, because without that political progress the security gains we've realized with the surge will be put at risk.
Q: When the Senate recently voted overwhelmingly in support of Senator Joseph Biden's plan to promote a form of federalism in Iraq that devolves power from the central government to Iraq's provinces, why did the administration so quickly label the plan "partition" and object to the idea?

Khalilzad: The U.S. Embassy wrote of a perception inside Iraq that the Senate was pushing for partition of Iraq, so I was glad Senator Biden [D-Del.] and Leslie Gelb [a president emeritus and board senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations] wrote a follow-on article making clear that they were talking about federalism, and not partition. Certainly, there's nothing wrong with federalism. We ourselves have a federal system. But in Iraq it's not only what we do that is vital, but also how it is perceived. When I worked with Iraqis on their constitution, we purposely allowed for the option of such a federal arrangement if that is the direction the Iraqis decide to go.
I still think we have to be very careful, however, that this is not perceived in Iraq as an American grand design to divide the country.

Q: Given the escalating war of words and provocations between the United States and Iran over Tehran's meddling in Iraq, how can you possibly reach the regional reconciliation that you say is critical?

Khalilzad: The issue is only about Iraq on the surface. Iran wants the Shiites to succeed in Iraq and so do we, because we want a democracy in Iraq and the Shiites are the largest voting bloc. We just want a democracy that also respects the rights of minorities.
The real problem is that the Iranians also want the United States to fail in Iraq, because they believe our success there will lead to problems for them. First, they worry that we might one day move against them from Iraq. Second, if we were to succeed in Iraq, Tehran worries that [Iraq] will one day play the regional balancing role against Iran that it used to play, and thus they would not be able to dominate geopolitically. For both of those reasons, Iran does not want a long-term American presence in Iraq.

Q: Yet absent such a presence, doesn't Iran make many of its neighbors nervous?

Khalilzad: In fact, this broader Iranian agenda in the region does make the Saudis and other Sunni countries nervous about Iranian domination. That's another complicating factor, because those Sunni countries will support Sunnis inside Iraq to counter the Iranians. The fact that Iran and the United States have a hostile relationship is another significant factor impacting not only Iraq, but the entire region. All of those factors explain why we need robust regional diplomacy to solve these problems.
Q: But if Iran remains determined to play the role of spoiler in Iraq, won't the country remain unstable?

Khalilzad: Well, it will certainly be more difficult to stabilize Iraq than it would be if Iran weren't playing this negative role. But difficult does not mean impossible. Over the course of the last year, we have begun inflicting costs on Iran by targeting its assets and networks inside Iraq. At the same time, I would not exclude talking with Iran and trying to reach some sort of understanding with them, much as we engaged with them earlier on the issue of Afghanistan. So our policy is a combination of openness toward engagement with the Iranians if that is useful, but at the same time hitting the Iranian networks that are causing problems inside Iraq. Hopefully, that will eventually lead to a regular, institutionalized dialogue between regional players that has both the United States and Iran in the room. Without such regional cooperation, it will certainly be far more difficult to stabilize Iraq.

[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.]