In this bulletin:

• Suicide blast in mosque kills Afghan deputy governor
• Afghan reports offer bleak assessments
• Calls grow for shift in Afghan policy
• Australian troops 'still needed in Afghanistan in 15 years'
• A victim of Karzai's diplomatic game
• Harper briefs Bush on Manley Afghan report
• NATO determined to put more troops in Afghanistan
• Dion insists Afghan combat role end in '09
• Canada joins bid to create global policy on detainees
• slight shift on Afghan position might save Dion
• Cup half full, half empty in Canada's development work for Afghanistan
• New bid to control Pakistan’s tribal belt
• US homes in on militants in Pakistan
• Afghanistan: Tempers Flare In Dispute Over Display Of Ancient Artifacts

Suicide blast in mosque kills Afghan deputy governor

LASHKAR GAH, Afghanistan (AFP) — A suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowded mosque in Afghanistan's southern Helmand province Thursday, killing its deputy governor and five other people, officials said.

The Helmand attack tore through the main mosque in the provincial capital Lashkar Gah as men had gathered for afternoon prayers, police said.

"When the prayers started at the main mosque of Lashkar Gah... a suicide attacker who had strapped explosives to his body detonated," Helmand province police chief Mohammad Hussain Andiwal said.

"Six people praying, including the deputy provincial governor Haji Pir Mohammad, were martyred and 18 others were wounded," he added. The wounded included a four-year-old child who had been begging at the entrance of the mosque, he said.

The deputy provincial health director, Nisar Ahmad, confirmed to AFP that Mohammad's body was among six brought to the hospital.

The deputy governor, in his 50s, was a respected and influential figure in the province, which has seen some of the worst of a Taliban-led insurgency and is the hub of Afghanistan's opium and heroin production.

A spokesman for the Taliban, Yousuf Ahmadi, could not immediately confirm if his group was involved in the attack. A Taliban suicide bomber struck the same mosque in September 2006 and killed 18 people.

The Lashkar Gah blast came hours after an early morning suicide bombing in the capital Kabul killed a civilian and wounded at least four other people. Responsibility for that bombing was claimed by the Taliban.

The attack was aimed at an Afghan National Army (ANA) bus taking staff to work in the city, the defence ministry said. A civilian in a taxi was killed and a handful of people, including an army officer, were wounded, but the blast missed the bus, officials said.

"The ANA vehicle drove away. In a taxi passing by, one civilian was killed," interior ministry spokesman Zemarai Bashary told AFP. Teenager Mohammad Sharif had been sitting in a nearby mosque when he heard the explosion.

"I ran out. Police at the roundabout starting shooting in the air. I saw a man screaming, lying on the road with his bicycle," the 16-year-old said.

The Taliban were also behind the previous attack inside the capital, a January 14 assault on the five-star Kabul Serena hotel that killed at least eight people, three of them foreign nationals.

That brazen attack -- which involved suicide blasts, gunfire and grenade explosions -- was the first of its kind in the city and different in style to the Taliban's regular fare of suicide and roadside bombings.

The insurgents usually direct their attacks at military targets and last year carried out several bombings on buses taking either army or police staff to work in the capital. They also target pro-government officials.

In June a suicide bomber boarded a police bus in the heart of Kabul and killed 35 people, many of them trainers at the police academy.

That was the deadliest suicide blast in Afghanistan until November 6 when a similar attack in the northern province of Baghlan killed nearly 80 people, including six parliamentarians and 59 children.

Last year was the deadliest in the insurgency, launched soon after the Taliban's five-year government was ousted in late 2001 in an invasion led by the United States backed by anti-Taliban Afghan movements.

Around 6,000 people were killed, most of them insurgents but also including 1,500 civilians.

US experts warned in separate reports Wednesday that Afghanistan risks becoming a failed state if urgent steps are not taken to tackle deteriorating security and lacklustre reconstruction and governance efforts.

Afghan reports offer bleak assessments

By Alastair Leithead - BBC News, Kabul

Exactly two years ago, the Afghan government and its many international backers met in London to plot a plan for the future, but the progress reports do not make for pretty reading.

The relief agency, Oxfam International, has sent an open letter to the leaders of supporting nations calling for "a major change in direction in order to reduce suffering and avert humanitarian disaster."

The influential US-based Afghanistan Study Group has meanwhile warned that the progress made in the six years since the end of the Taleban regime "is under serious threat from resurgent violence, weakening international resolve, and a growing lack of confidence on the part of the Afghan people".

And the US think-tank, the Atlantic Council of the United States, starts its report with the words: "Make no mistake, Nato is not winning in Afghanistan."

By way of example, the day began in Kabul with a suicide bomb attack on an Afghan National Army bus and the discovery that four kidnapped security contractors working on a road building project had been beheaded by the Taleban.

The bomber blew himself up before reaching his target, but civilians were killed and injured in another blast in the capital just a couple of weeks after the attack on the five-star Serena Hotel that has affected the work of many aid workers.

The "Afghanistan Compact" came out of the London Conference in the spring of 2006, agreeing on the principles of promoting development, security, governance, the rule of law and human rights in the country.

And while there has been progress on many fronts, the assessment of the three think-tanks and organisations is bleak. Oxfam said many of the compact's targets had not been hit, and efforts had been undermined by increasing insecurity.

"The international community could be a great deal more effective, but too much aid is unco-ordinated or ineffectively delivered," said Oxfam's policy advisor in Afghanistan, Matt Waldman.

"They need to improve their coherence in terms of aid, efficiency too - much of aid is wasted on very expensive consultants or on contractors who make quite significant profits."

There is a feeling among diplomats in Kabul that the international community is lacking in direction - hence their disappointment that President Hamid Karzai rejected the UK's Paddy Ashdown as a new super-envoy.

A United Nations representative who could co-ordinate and take the civilian effort forward is seen as the key to improving coherence, but it will be some months now before the position is filled.

The rejection of Lord Ashdown by the Afghan president at the 11th hour is indicative of the precarious relations between the international community and the charismatic leader. Oxfam's criticisms and call for change are echoed by the two US bodies.

The Afghanistan Study Group, headed by the former US ambassador to the UN, Thomas Pickering, and Gen James Jones, the former Nato Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, says "too few military forces and insufficient economic aid" are to blame.

"Afghanistan is at a crossroads," their report says. "It's time to revitalise and re-double our efforts towards stabilising Afghanistan and re-think our economic and military strategies."

The recommendations are for a special envoy for Afghanistan within the US government to co-ordinate all US policies, and for Congress to "decouple Iraq and Afghanistan" and formulate a new unified five-year strategy.

And the Atlantic Council of the United States says its report is intended "to sound the alarm... that urgent changes are now required to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a failing or failed state".

Calls grow for shift in Afghan policy

Washington Times - January 31, 2008

By David R. Sands - The Bush administration faces increasing pressure to make a major policy course correction on Afghanistan, shifting the focus from Iraq to fight a resurgent terrorist threat and build up the faltering government in Kabul.

A Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing today is set to take up a string of new reports warning that the political and economic situations in Afghanistan are deteriorating amid growing strains between the United States and its NATO allies over the military mission there.

"Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan," warns a new study by the Atlantic Council of the U.S. "Unless this reality is understood, and action is taken promptly, the future of Afghanistan is bleak, with regional and global impact."

Private analysts and a number of top lawmakers say the trends in Afghanistan today are not good, even as the situation in Iraq has taken a more hopeful turn in recent months.

Challenges include a Taliban-al Qaeda insurgency that has grown more aggressive in the south; soaring opium production that is undermining the legitimate economy; instability across the border in Pakistan's tribal strongholds; and public squabbles between the NATO allies and with the government of President Hamid Karzai on the way forward.

"The bottom line is that, on the current course, we're losing ground in Afghanistan," said Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee that monitors Afghanistan.

A second new study, produced by many of the diplomats and strategists who drafted the December 2006 Iraq Study Group report, warned that Afghanistan has become a "forgotten war" in the U.S. focus on Iraq, and that Afghanistan is in danger of political collapse if major policy changes are not instituted.

Afghanistan, the report concluded, "stands today at a crossroads." Key recommendations included "de-coupling" Afghanistan from Iraq in U.S. policy and funding debates and to appoint a U.S. government "czar" for the Afghan mission.

"The United States and the international community have tried to win the struggle in Afghanistan with too few military forces and insufficient economic aid," the Afghanistan Study Group report said.

Gen. James L. Jones, former U.S. NATO commander and a co-chairman of the study, said, "It's not a question of effort. It's a question of focus."

But the study called for more coalition forces at a time when the NATO allies are bickering over troop levels and the division of labor in the war. Canada, with a large contingent in the country's violent south, has appealed so far without success for other NATO countries to share the burden.

President Bush has approved the dispatch of 3,200 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but the Pentagon this week made clear that no more American forces would be deployed for now.

Mr. Bush is his State of the Union address Monday gave a brief but positive review of the Afghan mission, saying the international coalition had helped turn a "safe haven for al Qaeda" into a democracy where new schools, hospitals and roads are being built.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the Afghan mission remains challenging, but there had been real progress and the U.S. commitment remained firm.

"We know what a failed state looks like. It was Afghanistan under the Taliban," he said. "While Afghanistan of today has a variety of different challenges, it is not Afghanistan of 2001."

But U.S. officials and private analysts expressed disappointment that veteran British diplomat Paddy Ashdown this week withdrew from consideration as the new U.N. "super envoy" to Afghanistan after Mr. Karzai effectively vetoed the nomination.

"It's a tragedy that Lord Ashdown is not able to take that job," said David M. Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency, which organized the Afghanistan Study Group report.

Australian troops 'still needed in Afghanistan in 15 years'

February 1, 2008 - AFGHANISTAN will be struggling to secure its southern regions 15 years from now, with Australian troops still needed to combat terrorism, a think tank says.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute says Taliban militants and others seeking to disrupt the democratic Government in Kabul will still be conducting bombings and irregular insurgencies in southern and eastern provinces in 2023.

"In 15 years time, Afghanistan is likely to be divided geographically," the institute said in a paper published yesterday. "An optimistic vision sees the Government in Kabul with a tangible writ across the north and west.

"Provincial leaders will respond to central directives because Kabul is delivering the benefits of international assistance.

"In the south and east, Pashtun provincial leaders will take part in national governance and several provinces will be passive. However, areas of Kandahar, Helmand and the eastern provinces that border Pakistan will suffer from insurgency."

Many intelligence agencies believe that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden could be hiding on the Pakistani side of one of the most porous borders in the world.

A victim of Karzai's diplomatic game

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor Thursday, 31 January 2008

It comes at a time when the Afghan leader has been speaking out uncharacteristically against the Western liberators of his country.

His leaked comments in Davos doomed the candidacy of Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon as the UN "super envoy" for Afghanistan last week.

Recently the President has been denounced in the Afghan media as a "US puppet" and has responded by draping himself in the Afghan flag to demonstrate his independence. He stood up to the Americans by refusing to allow the eradication of opium poppies by crop spraying, and defied the British and Irish governments by refusing to back down over the expulsion of two foreign experts working in Afghanistan.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Mr Karzai went public with accusations that the British presence in Helmand had only made matters worse.

People in Kabul say the blasphemy sentence is not necessarily linked to the deterioration in the relationship between Mr Karzai and his Nato backers. But it is thought he decided to reject Lord Ashdown after Afghan and British media presented the appointment as a deal cooked up by the US and UK governments.

The strategy of distancing himself from his foreign backers presents a double-edged sword for Mr Karzai, who faces an election in 2009-10.

These are troubled times for Afghanistan, which today marks two years since the signing of the Afghan Compact, setting the country's long-term course for development. The British charity Oxfam said yesterday in an open letter to Mr Brown that "too many" of the pact's commitments have not been met in Afghanistan.

Mr Karzai's role is not easy as the elected leader of a country who has to juggle the demands of Western leaders marching into his office. He has not had a holiday since 11 September 2001 and he is showing signs of fatigue, contributing to the whispering campaign against him andtalk of his "misjudgement" in taking on the powerful donor countries. Maybe he should consider a – short – vacation soon.

Harper briefs Bush on Manley Afghan report

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper has told George W. Bush that Canada will not extend its mission in Afghanistan beyond next year unless it gets additional combat help and equipment.

The Prime Minister's Office says Harper briefed the U.S. president by phone Wednesday on the findings of the Manley report on Afghanistan. He told Bush he accepts the broad recommendations of the report and will be discussing the matter with other leaders over the coming weeks.

The White House issued a release saying the leaders discussed the Afghan mission and "how to ensure its continued success."

"The president noted the deployment of 3,200 additional U.S. Marines to Afghanistan, as well as his continued commitment to work with NATO to enhance its commitment to the Afghanistan mission," deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto said in a statement.

John Manley, a former Liberal deputy prime minister, led a blue-chip panel that studied the Afghan situation.

His report said Canada should continue its combat mission provided that NATO comes up with another 1,000 troops to shore up the situation in southern Afghanistan, and the military gets medium-lift helicopters and new unmanned surveillance aircraft.

NATO determined to put more troops in Afghanistan
Canwest News Service - Wednesday, January 30, 2008

OTTAWA - NATO is determined to keep the Canadian Forces in southern Afghanistan and will lean on its members to find the additional 1,000 troops called for in the Manley report.

NATO has fully endorsed the findings of the independent panel headed by the former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley on Canada's future military involvement in Afghanistan, and also threw its full weight behind Prime Minister Stephen Harper's efforts to persuade allies to supply more troops to southern Afghanistan - the key condition for Canada continuing its combat mission beyond February 2009.

"We will work with Canada and play our part in support of Prime Minister Harper's efforts to find those other contributions," NATO's chief spokesman James Appathurai said Wednesday in an exclusive interview with the Canwest News Service from Brussels.

Harper spoke Wednesday with President George W. Bush about Afghanistan and the Manley report, underscoring to Bush that, unless Canada was able to secure additional combat troops and equipment from NATO allies, Canada's mission in Afghanistan will not be extended.

As Harper received NATO's endorsement, the Conservatives continued to come under fire in the House of Commons over its handling of Afghan detainees, particularly a new policy that prevents Canada from handing over suspected Taliban insurgents to local authorities.

But Canwest News has learned that Afghanistan National Army soldiers working beside Canadian "mentors" continue to detain prisoners. Detainees taken under such circumstances are transported directly to local Afghan jails.

Their treatment is not monitored by Canadian troops or Canadian government officials, a well-placed source in Kandahar has told Canwest.

The arrangement appears to circumvent rules that now prevent Canadians from delivering suspected insurgents to Afghan detention facilities. That practice ended in November because of concerns that the detainees, if released to Afghan authorities, might be subjected to torture.

One "credible" claim of torture was made by a prisoner transferred under the old system. The report was not immediately made public, nor was the resulting change in Canadian policy. The delay has caused a political uproar in Ottawa.

Sources have told Canwest that suspected insurgents apprehended by Canadian troops are, in fact, now being held at a detention centre at Kandahar Airfield, and are being treated in accordance with the Third Geneva Convention.

Deputy leader Michael Ignatieff accused the government of misleading Canadians and their NATO allies on the treatment of detainees. "We communicate regularly with NATO officials," said Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

Appathurai said NATO was following the detainee issue "very carefully" but did not want to become involved in the "Canadian debate."

NATO's endorsement of Manley's findings amounted to a clear rejection of the Liberals' position, and provided a shot in the arm for Harper as he tries to persuade the Liberals to support the continuation of the mission with a vote in the House of Commons later this spring.

"A wholesale shift of the operation from being able, as necessary, to do combat to a training mission - exclusively a training mission - would from NATO's point of view simply be too soon," Appathurai explained.

"It's the same position as the Manley report," he added. "We share it completely."

Liberal leader Stephane Dion said he is still waiting for a specific proposal from Harper, as he continued to reject the underlying finding of the report of the former Liberal deputy prime minister and foreign minister.

"The combat mission must end in February 2009 and we need a timeline," Dion said. "It's not good for NATO and for the mission."

As far as NATO was concerned, Appathurai said it wants Canada to stay in Kandahar to build on strategic gains already made in fighting the Taliban insurgency there.

"Let there be no doubt that Kandahar is the spiritual heartland of the Taliban. It is important strategically. Canada has done a great job there," he said. "We would not want to see a situation where Canada was unable find a way to continue."

Appathurai said NATO remains committed to its core exit strategy - training enough Afghan army and police to be able to provide a competent level of security in their country without the aid of Western forces.

NATO needs more military trainers, and the demand for them will grow even further to keep up as ranks of new Afghan army recruits continue to swell, he said.

"We definitely need to step up our training effort, there's no doubt about that. But what we can't yet do is take our foot off the pedal when it comes to the military operations."

NATO defence ministers will meet next week in Vilnius, Lithuania, but Appathurai said that no breakthroughs are expected in finding extra troops.

"We will try to stimulate further offers. It is not a force generation conference. The defence ministers won't come with packages of this and that," said Appathurai.

Any breakthroughs will have to wait until NATO leader meet in early April in Bucharest, Romania.

Harper agreed with another key Manley recommendation and will lead a diplomatic offensive to press his 25 fellow NATO allies for more troops. In particular, Canada wants a country to partner with in Kandahar to share the combat burden, which has so far claimed the lives of 78 soldiers and one diplomat.

"We cannot, as NATO headquarters, force anybody to do anything," said Appathurai. "We can play our part through the military headquarters to support the bilateral discussions that Prime Minister Harper will be having."

Dion insists Afghan combat role end in '09

January 30, 2008 - THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA–Stephane Dion says the Liberals will not budge from their insistence that Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan end as scheduled in February 2009.

"No, no," the Liberal leader said flatly when asked if his deadline for ending the mission is negotiable. "The combat mission must end in February 2009."

Dion's unequivocal assertion appeared to clarify the Liberal position, which has been confused since last week's report by the Manley panel on the future of Canada's role in Afghanistan.

However Bob Rae, the Liberal foreign affairs critic, said the party won't take a "precipitous decision on anything" until it sees precisely how the government intends to act on the Manley report.

The panel, headed by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley, recommended that the combat mission in Kandahar be extended indefinitely – but only on condition that Canada's NATO partners provide 1,000 more troops and that Canadian soldiers get medium-lift helicopters and new unmanned aerial vehicles.

Bolstered by a caucus meeting today where most Liberals appeared to favour sticking to their position, Dion summarily rejected Manley's recommendation.

"We need a timeline. We will not say, `If we have 1,000 (additional) troops, we're on a never-ending mission.' This is completely unacceptable for Canadians."

He added that if NATO allies can't agree to the principle of rotating troops from different countries through Kandahar "the mission will not hold for the long haul, it will not work."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has broadly accepted the Manley panel's recommendations and promised to seek Parliament's approval for any extension of the mission.

With both the NDP and Bloc Quebecois instantly rejecting the panel's conclusions, Harper has said he'll meet with Dion in a bid to win Liberal support.

Dion said he has not yet received an invitation to meet with the prime minister. But if there's to be parliamentary agreement on the mission, Dion signalled that Harper is the one who'll have to modify his position. "The ball is in his camp."

During a closed-door caucus meeting today, Dion was even firmer, sources said. He reportedly told Liberals MPs: "Mr. Manley is speaking on behalf of Mr. Manley, he's not speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada."

According to caucus members, Dion said that doesn't mean Liberals can't be friends with Manley, but he stressed that Manley's recommendations are not Liberal policy.

Still, insiders close to the leader said Dion has not entirely ruled out any adjustment to the Liberal position. It's conceivable, for instance, that Liberals might be persuaded to accept a short extension of the mission up to 2010.

But the chances of Harper agreeing to that are deemed remote. Moreover, Rae said the chances of other NATO countries reinforcing Canadians troops seems less likely.

"There's a lot of poker going on," Rae said. "We'll just have to see what happens. I think it's a little early to be speculating on what various bottom lines might or might not be. I have no idea where the government is really heading."

Until it's clear how successful Harper is in rustling up reinforcements and precisely what he intends to propose to gain Liberal support, insiders say there is little for Dion to gain in reopening debate on an issue that has split the Liberal caucus in the past.

In the midst of the Liberal leadership race in 2006, Harper sprang a motion to extend the combat mission by two years to 2009. One quarter of the Liberal caucus, including now-deputy leader Michael Ignatieff, supported the motion while the rest, including Dion, opposed it.

Shortly after winning the leadership, Dion forged a fragile consensus on the issue, insisting that the combat mission end in 2009 and that Canada refocus its efforts in Afghanistan to reconstruction, humanitarian aid and training of Afghan security forces.

Insiders say there are still a few hawks in Liberal caucus but most MPs remain content with the compromise struck by Dion. Indeed, they predict Dion would likely face greater internal dissent should he back down than if he agreed to modify his position.

In any event, strategists point out the government could be defeated over its budget, expected next month, before Parliament is asked to vote on the Afghanistan mission. Hence, there's little point in Liberals "leading with our chin" on the issue now.

Canada joins bid to create global policy on detainees

Even as Tories defend current practice, talks held on common rules for treating prisoners

January 31, 2008 - Allan Woods, toronto star

OTTAWA–Canada has been quietly working to establish a new international policy for handling battlefield detainees, even while the Conservative government defends the way prisoners are transferred to Afghan jails.

The Star has learned that last October in Denmark, Canadian officials joined counterparts from the United States, Pakistan, Britain and a number of other European and African countries to establish a common platform for the handling of detainees that all countries can use in foreign military campaigns.

The meeting came one month before Canadian soldiers stopped handing prisoners over to Afghan authorities on Nov. 6 for fear they might be tortured. Government lawyers have admitted that continuing to send detainees to local jails could put Ottawa in violation of the Geneva Conventions and anti-torture laws.

Foreign officials say Canada's decision to suspend transfers risks undermining the efforts of all NATO partners who have signed detainee transfer agreements with the Afghan government. Now that Canada has recognized there is a credible risk that detainees will be abused in Afghan jails, none of the NATO allies can claim ignorance of the risk of mistreatment.

The push for a global policy on detainee handling is being headed by the Danish government, which envisions setting up the new rules under the authority of the United Nations.

According to documents obtained from the Danish embassy, the initial meeting in October, which also included officials from the UN, NATO and the International Committee of the Red Cross, focused on the "number of difficult political, practical and legal concerns" surrounding detainees, including the legal basis for countries to take prisoners, the standards for transfers, and how to ensure human rights are respected.

Without a single agreement that all countries can sign on to, countries could be reluctant to commit troops to missions, said Jakob Henningsen, an official with the Danish embassy in Ottawa.

A Danish foreign ministry official added that the key is to avoid countries having to sign individual prisoner transfer agreements, often with different conditions and standards of care. That is the case in Afghanistan, where Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands and other countries are responsible for negotiating the terms of transfer of detainees with the Afghan government.

"The way (detainees) are handled may depend, to some extent, on who is detaining them," Thomas Winkler, head of the Danish foreign ministry's department of international law, said in an interview from Copenhagen.

"This is, from a broader human rights perspective, not a very satisfactory solution. It creates some uncertainty between forces participating in the same operation, and it may affect the efficiency of the joint operations."

Countries are drawing primarily on the experiences of militaries in Iraq and Afghanistan to sketch out a possible solution, Winkler said.

The next meeting, in April, is expected to include military officials and instructors who can present the practical considerations of soldiers on the ground who are the ones taking and transferring detainees.

"What the military is screaming for is clarity," Winkler said. "At the end of the day, the way a detainee is being handled is up to a soldier."

Canada has signed two agreements with the Afghan government outlining how to handle prisoner transfers. The first was signed in December 2005, under a Liberal government. The Conservatives signed a new agreement last May that allows Canadian officials to visit Afghan prisoners, monitor their conditions and interview detainees.

It was this procedure that unearthed a "credible allegation of abuse" – the electrical wire and rubber hose used in the abuse of one prisoner – and led to the suspension of transfers. Still, the Tories say they intend to resume handing over prisoners once they consider that risk of abuse to have abated.

But critics have taken issue with the government's secrecy on all aspects of the Afghan mission. The revelation that Canada is working to construct yet another prisoner transfer agreement is likely to give them further ammunition to attack the Conservatives.

It comes as the government defends itself in a court case against two human rights groups seeking an end to prisoner transfers, and as it probes at least seven allegations of torture heard by Canadian and Afghan officials.

slight shift on Afghan position might save Dion

Measurable goals for Afghanistan mission would satisfy all parties

John Ivison,  National Post  Published: Thursday, January 31, 2008

OTTAWA -Stephane Dion is preparing to declare a stunning victory for the Liberals on Afghanistan. Mr. Dion is subtly changing his original position -- but it won't be characterized as a retreat. He will just be attacking in the opposite direction.
The Liberal leader was sticking to his non-negotiable position that the combat mission in Kandahar must end in February, 2009, when he talked to reporters after Question Period yesterday. But he also introduced a new concept -- "timelines" -- which suggests he does not see Canada's mission in Afghanistan ending next year. "We need a timeline .... Timelines are important," he said.

This refinement in Liberal policy was discussed at yesterday's caucus meeting and emerged from a suggestion by B.C. Liberal Keith Martin that the Liberals propose hard targets, in numbers and timelines, for the development of the Afghan army, police, judiciary and correctional services. The imposition of timelines would satisfy Liberal concerns that Canada not be engaged in a "never-ending" war. But their adoption would also be in accord with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's belief that our contribution should be reviewed within two to three years.

This apparent evolution of the Liberal position means a compromise agreement is possible -- and that the chances of a general election over Afghanistan are about as slim as Kate Moss. Mr. Dion must know he faces a damaging split in his ranks if he doesn't forge a deal with Mr. Harper.

Equally, the Prime Minister has signalled his distaste for an election in which Afghanistan is the ballot question. One senior Conservative source says the government is not inclined to be brought down on the Afghan issue. As such, the source said it is unlikely the parliamentary vote on the mission would be deemed a matter of confidence. This would mean a government defeat would not automatically trigger an election, allowing all MPs to vote with their conscience, as they did when the mission was extended in spring, 2006.

Once Mr. Harper and Mr. Dion have struck their unholy alliance, as seems likely, both men will be free to claim victory. The Liberal leader will be able to say his input has meant the "combat" mission has been transformed into a "training" mission that will operate to tight timelines to ensure progress. If he does, it would be diplomatic of Mr. Harper not to point out that the Manley report makes the explicit point that this "falsely implies a clear line between a training role and combat activity; in reality, training and mentoring Afghan forces means sometimes conducting combat operations."

The truth is Mr. Harper needs Mr. Dion. He is using the Liberal leader's current intransigence as a negotiating chip with NATO to ensure the delivery of the extra 1,000 troops demanded by the Manley report as a pre-condition for Canada's continued participation. This must be one of the only times the partisan tension in Parliament has actually proved productive for Canadians; yesterday NATO's spokesman sounded much more sympathetic to Canada's cause than he did earlier this week.

Ultimately, the Prime Minister needs the Liberal leader's backing to make sure a motion to continue the mission makes it through Parliament.

But Mr. Dion needs Mr. Harper, too. In an attempt to look like a strong leader, he is clinging to an untenable position on Afghanistan -- a position that has been rubbished by Mr. Manley, the former Liberal deputy prime minister, who said there was "no operational logic" for ending the mission in 2009. The Prime Minister has offered an olive branch. If it is not grasped, the Liberal party could fracture and we will all face the prospect of an election in which politicians blame each other for the affront to nature of fathers burying their dead sons.

Cup half full, half empty in Canada's development work for Afghanistan

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - You can give a man a fish and feed him for a day, the proverb goes, or you can teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime. If that's the mantra of development work in Afghanistan, Canada's approach is failing.

Millions of dollars are eaten up by corruption and mismanagement, and even successful programs do not seem to have a long-term impact, according government documents, non-governmental organizations and a former aid official.

Nipa Banerjee said 50 per cent of the $300 million allocated during her three years as head of aid in Afghanistan for the Canadian International Development Agency brought little or no results.

"Fifty per cent had impact and the other 50 didn't," said Banerjee, who ran CIDA's office in Kabul from 2003 to 2006 and now lectures at the University of Ottawa.

"The 50 per cent that didn't were not in the social and economic sectors, but they were in the security sector, justice sector, the police - which have been failures."

Banerjee's estimates are mirrored in a recent review of CIDA programs, released in the fall of 2007.

Twelve of 27 projects CIDA had underway between 2004 and 2007 were reviewed in detail by independent professionals.

Half of them were described as having "significantly improved people's lives," but the remainder judged as mixed successes, mostly as a result of corruption and a dearth of skilled, knowledgeable people to carry out programs and keep track of spending.

The social and economic sectors Banerjee highlighted are where Canada has bought Afghanistan the proverbial fish - polio vaccinations for 350,000 children, 200 kilometres plus of paved roads, 1,200 wells, thousands of schools.

"Your baseline is so punishingly low that you are going to have areas of real forward motion," said Gerry Barr, head of the Canadian Council on International Cooperation, or CCIC.

"If you go from hundreds of schools to thousands of schools, it is intuitively powerful. You can say, yes that's good, plainly there is some change. But it still doesn't ... describe the broad challenge of development in Afghanistan."

The challenge is sustainable development - the fishing lessons. It is quite different from the aid to merely help people survive.

Most aid professionals note that some of the challenges in Afghanistan's development aren't CIDA's fault. They point to the many obstacles to rebuilding in a conflict environment.

"It's very difficult to do long-term development in a war zone," said Allan Sauder, the Canadian-based president of the Mennonite Economic Development Associates, a non-governmental organization that has spent years in Afghanistan.

"When people are facing that kind of insecurity in their lives, it is very tough to talk about developing business."

The Afghanistan Compact, signed in 2006 by 51 countries, lays out benchmarks of where the country should be by 2011 in areas such as security, governance and social development.

Progress is slow but Afghanistan's economy is growing, school enrolment has tripled since 2001, and healthcare outreach has cut in half the number of people dying from treatable diseases like tuberculosis.

The Canadian government tries to meet the benchmarks through funding and assistance from three areas:

-CIDA, which funds Afghanistan to the tune of $100 million a year through 2011;

-Department of Foreign Affairs, which has committed over $158 million through 2010;

-the military, which is spending $5.1 million on development projects this year.

More than 300 people work out of Canada's Provincial Reconstruction Team Base in Kandahar to implement that aid.

The bulk of Canada's assistance is delivered under an Afghan flag to shore up support for President Hamid Karzai's government. From the military perspective, that means using Afghan contractors to build things like wells or police substations.

"We are there as implementers, aids, facilitators as required, very often behind the scenes," said Lt.-Col. Bob Chamberlain, head of the PRT.

"Our real desire is that we don't take credit for what we're doing. We want Afghans at the end of the day to feel pride and sense of accomplishment."

Money from CIDA and Foreign Affairs is poured mostly into trust funds overseen by multilateral agencies, and then disbursed to Afghan government ministries.

Using multilateral agencies is how CIDA insists it can keep track of how the money is spent, as these agencies have strict reporting protocols. It doesn't mean, however, the money is always being spent as it should.

Twelve million dollars for a confidence-in-government project called the Afghanistan Stabilization Program was redirected by CIDA when the World Bank reported problems with figuring out where the money was going.

The first two years of a $15-million payout to the National Area Based Development Program remains unaccounted for.

Banerjee said CIDA pulled out of a trust fund to pay the salaries of police officers when it became clear they weren't getting their cheques.

And no one has yet explained where the $900,000 promised to each of 17 districts in Kandahar province has gone since the military's massive Operation Medusa in 2006 that finally opened up parts of the province for development.

CIDA officials were not available for an interview in response to these questions. They did not respond to a list of questions submitted at their request via e-mail, saying they did not have enough time.

Human capacity, the term given to the presence of a skilled and able workforce, is one of the biggest challenges facing development - there simply isn't enough of it in Afghanistan. CIDA and others have worked to try and restore the brain trust.

In a recent technical briefing, CIDA officials trumpeted legal training for 200 jurists through a program run by the International Development Law Organization.

But in CIDA's own evaluation report, the program was rapped on the knuckles for having shoddy accounting procedures and little long-term impact. "Local commitment is weak," the report said.

"In general, outside this project, reforms in the justice sector will be profoundly difficult. There are non-functioning courts, alleged extensive corruption, and a widespread belief that the courts do not produce fair results."

CIDA also decided to grant $1.7 million to Women's Rights in Afghanistan Fund, a four-year project implemented by the Montreal-based group Rights and Democracy.

The money was provided to 16 projects designed to encourage the participation of women in Afghan civil society.

"While there were some successes, there were no significant organizational development results and the reporting was very weak," the evaluation report found.

The importance of working with local partners sometimes butts heads with CIDA's reporting requirements, said Razmik Panossian, director of programs for Rights and Democracy.

"CIDA has certain standards and when you are working in a war-torn country, with all of the challenges that (it) has with the current security situation, some of the things you really cannot meet all that easily," he said.

"If, for example, you have put together a literacy class in Kandahar for a group of underprivileged women, and that group is unable to report to headquarters what they have done in the logical framework analysis system that CIDA expects us to do, then as far as CIDA is concerned your reporting is weak."

Rights and Democracy said it has improved local capacity and CIDA has rewarded that with another round of funding.

Security remains a prime challenge. The PRT was completely hamstrung until the military sent a force-protection unit in 2006. And though development is meeting with success in more peaceful parts of the country, Kandahar lags behind.

There are no systematic programs to address corruption at the national, provincial and local levels.

"Nevertheless, CIDA has kept at it," said Drew Gilmore of Development Works, a private company funded by CIDA to oversee projects in Kandahar. "Mistakes have been made, lessons learned and the slow, slow process of rebuilding the place is picking up steam."

"The CIDA people are focused and creative and really pushing the development to jump start projects."

Creative thinking is in part attributable to Stephen Wallace, the new vice-president of CIDA's Afghanistan Task Force, said Gerry Barr of the CCIC.

Barr said the formation of the task force and Wallace's appointment show a shift in approach. "More outreach to Canadian NGOs, more transparency, quicker, more responsive approach and that's all to the good," he said.

The report of the federal government's independent panel on Afghanistan, chaired by John Manley, suggested too much Canadian money was in international joint programs and not enough on quick-action projects defined by the Afghan leadership.

In part, that's what CIDA, through the UN, does with community development councils - locally-elected bodies who draw up lists of development priorities which are then approved and funded.

Over 19,000 such councils have sprung up throughout Afghanistan and more than 7,000 community projects have been completed. The principle behind them is that if communities decide what they want, they'll make sure the projects work.

The councils are celebrated for giving women a voice in community development, bringing together leaders and helping people take ownership of development. All are important factors in long-term development, but there are still challenges.

Banerjee said the money isn't there to maintain the projects, only to get them off the ground.

And the evaluation report highlighted the high cost of overseeing them: 28 per cent of the funding for community development councils goes to consultants to oversee the projects.

"While it was too early to conclude that the relatively few livelihood projects are not sustainable, it would appear that their sustainability has not been the subject of much analysis," said the CIDA report.

One bright spot has emerged in international efforts to rebuild Afghanistan. Small loans provided to Afghans to start their own businesses have been a runaway success, surpassing all expectations.

More than 300,000 people have benefited from the money, and 98 per cent of loans have been repaid.

Canada is the largest donor to the Microfinance Investment Support Facility for Afghanistan, based on the Nobel-prize winning program in Bangladesh that has supported millions of small loans there.

Mennonite Economic Development Associates has contributed technical assistance to the program.

Sauder said the experience shows a need to combine both elements of the aid parable but with a twist: Canada should give the fish and allow Afghans to devise their own fishing lessons.

New bid to control Pakistan’s tribal belt

US, Pakistan step up efforts to address the militant haven tied to global terror.

By Mark Sappenfield | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Islamabad, Pakistan - After years of Pakistani indecision and US deference, the fight against Pakistan's terrorists, it appears, is now entering a new stage.

Since 9/11, Pakistan has been slow to react to the increasing influence of militants in its remote tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, and the US has been loath to interfere, at least openly.

But this dynamic is shifting since terrorists killed former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and are striking at more corners of the country. For the first time, the US is putting public pressure on Pakistan by asking its leaders to let the US help fight terrorists within the country. Though Pakistan has rebuffed these advances, it has shown signs of taking the terrorist threat more seriously, responding quickly and forcefully to militants' increasingly bold attacks.

It is too early to call this a turning point – it is far from clear what effect these efforts will have. But they suggest a new resolve to address what has become the primary launching pad for terrorist attacks against Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the world.

"There is a realization within the military establishment that the government has lost its authority in the tribal areas," says Ismail Khan, a reporter for the English-language daily, Dawn, who covers the tribal belt.

In recent weeks, the US has offered military assistance to root out extremists in the largely ungoverned northwestern regions known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) – with combat troops, CIA operations, or training.

President Pervez Musharraf has rejected the "invasion" of US troops. But the US is becoming increasingly concerned that activity within FATA is now the foremost threat to the stability in the region and even the world.

US officials have long worried that the Afghan Taliban were finding shelter in FATA. But the assassination of former Ms. Bhutto Dec. 27 – attributed to militants from FATA – was evidence that they could strike at the heart of Pakistan itself. Meanwhile, a string of terrorist plots, including the foiled plan to blow up passenger planes over the Atlantic, were traced to training camps and terrorist leaders in FATA.

As a result, there is a desire to increase coordination on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border. Tactically, "Pakistan and Afghanistan are not different," says Ijaz Khan, a political scientist at Peshawar University. "They should be seen together."

With plans to send 3,200 more troops to Afghanistan in the spring, the US is adding strength to the Afghan side. America's overtures to Pakistan represent an effort to "find ways to strengthen the Pakistan Army," says Anthony Cordesman, a security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

He dismisses unilateral US action in Pakistan as implausible and counterproductive unless it is small, strictly targeted, and can be plausibly denied – the sort of operation Pakistan might secretly accept.

Already, the US is believed to launch periodic missiles into Pakistan from drone aircraft flying from Afghanistan. A Jan. 29 strike in North Waziristan was said by locals to have been one of these. The Pakistani government has also launched airstrikes in the region, but the US and Pakistan deny responsibility for such attacks, which have occurred periodically in recent years.

For its part, Pakistan has shown signs of dealing with its militants more decisively. Last week, militants in FATA hijacked four trucks filled with military materiel. In the past, militants have occupied a mosque in the capital, Islamabad, for months without a response from the military. But days after the hijacking, the Army sent tanks and troops to a nearby town where Taliban had walked the streets freely.

Earlier this month, Mr. Musharraf replaced the regional governor who oversees security in FATA. The previous governor, Ali Jan Aurakzai, engineered the withdrawal of the Pakistani Army from FATA in 2006 in exchange for a promise from local tribal leaders that they would expel any foreign militants. The plan is now widely viewed as a failure that greatly strengthened militants. The new governor, Owais Ahmad Ghazi, gained his reputation by putting down an insurgency in the neighboring province of Balochistan by force.

Many Pakistani analysts, however, doubt Pakistan's commitment rto stamping out militancy. They question whether it is merely going through these motions to ease international pressure, as they say it has before.

To some, the Army is still reluctant to turn against these extremists, whom it used before 9/11 to terrorize India and establish, through the Taliban, a pro-Pakistan government in Afghanistan. If it will not change this mind set, the current operations will fail, they say.

What is needed, they say, is for the US to use the same sophistication that it did in Iraq, where Marines in Anbar Province used their knowledge of the cultural landscape to fight a more nuanced and effective war.

In FATA, America cannot do the fighting, but it can use its influence to ensure that Pakistan fights more intelligently, says Ikram Sehgal, editor of Defence Journal. "The US needs to apply pressure, but it needs to apply the right kind of pressure."

The solution, he says, is not intensified operations, which are likely to alienate the fiercely independent tribal belt. Instead, the Army should use tribal chiefs to leverage the situation in their favor, supporting those who oppose the militants.

In an area such as FATA, intersecting allegiances of tribe and ethnicity create a patchwork of problems that can vary from one village to the next.

"You have to get into the micro-level to find what the problems are in each area and find the solutions to that," says Mr. Khan, the journalist.

US homes in on militants in Pakistan

By Syed Saleem Shahzad Asia Times Online / January 30, 2008

KARACHI - Another piece of the United States' regional jigsaw is in place with the completion of a military base in Afghanistan's Kunar province, just three kilometers from Bajaur Agency in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

Pakistani intelligence quarters have confirmed to Asia Times Online that the base, on a mountain top in Ghakhi Pass overlooking Pakistan, is now operational. (This correspondent visited the area last July and could clearly see construction underway. See A fight to the death on Pakistan's border Asia Times Online, July 17, 2007.)

The new US base is expected to serve as the center of clandestine special forces' operations in the border region. The George W Bush administration is itching to take more positive action - including inside Pakistan - against Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda militants increasingly active in the area and bolstering the insurgency in Afghanistan.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has officially rejected US proposals to expand the US presence in Pakistan, either through unilateral covert Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operations or by joint operations with Pakistani security forces, but this is not necessarily the end of the matter, especially as the situation in Afghanistan deteriorates. According to reports, Mike McConnell, the director of US national intelligence, and CIA director General Michael Hayden visited Pakistan this month to meet with Musharraf.

A senior Pakistani security official explained to Asia Times Online, "American special forces have carried out clandestine operations in the past, and Pakistan was not informed. The Taliban and al-Qaeda also did not realize what was happening with the quick-as-a-wink hit-and-run operations in the tribal areas. Pakistani intelligence only knew of the operations after they happened. They included the killing of high-value Taliban and al-Qaeda commanders and high-value arrests," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"However, with the new Kunar base, American special forces will carry out extended operations, which means a limited war against Taliban and al-Qaeda assets in the tribal areas. These clandestine operations can be done with or without Pakistan's consent."

In response, the initial militant action is expected to be the relocation of its key leadership away from the immediate danger area. Efforts to disrupt the vital supply lines of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)from Pakistan into Afghanistan will be stepped up. A further option is to increase terror operations inside Pakistan as a warning that the militants should be left alone.

The Taliban leadership is aware of the danger posed by the new American base. Several powerful attacks were mounted while it was under construction, but they only managed to cause delays.

The pressing problem is to find a new safe haven for the high profile al-Qaeda leadership. The area on both sides of the border - the Chitral - is characterized by inhospitable jungles and mazes of mountains and rivers, stretching from Noorestan and Kunar provinces in Afghanistan to the Bajaur Valley. Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is known to have stayed in the area. It is now a question of finding a safer location for him - if he is still in the area - and his colleagues.

US intelligence spotted bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, twice in Bajaur Agency and attacked the area with Predator drones. Zawahiri was unscathed, but several militants and civilians were killed. Local Taliban sources tell Asia Times Online that Zawahiri had been moving in the area for more than 30 hours before he was spotted and targeted. Apparently, he was to meet with bin Laden.

Going after NATO's arteries - When Pakistani militants occupied Pakistan's strategic tunnel, which connects Peshawar, the capital of North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) to the cantonment town of Kohat in NWFP, the aim was to attack military convoys. These, the Taliban realized, were transporting supplies to Kohat air base, from where they were being flown to the American base in Khost in Afghanistan.

This move has effectively opened a new front in Kohat and Darra Adam Khel - the biggest arms and ammunition-manufacturing area in the region. There were four attacks last week.

Another senior security official told Asia Times Online, "Pakistan has conceded to many of the [Pakistani] Taliban's demands for peace, such as the release of fellow tribesmen. But if they demand something like the closure of NATO's supply lines from Pakistan, it is beyond Pakistan's orbit. The Americans sought Pakistan's cooperation [in the "war on terror"] , in return they pledged billions of dollars in aid. But they wanted steady supply lines for NATO forces in Afghanistan," the official said.

"Pakistan has stretched itself to the limit for the sake of peace in the country, it has even struck deals with al-Qaeda for it to stop attacking Pakistan. But if they [al-Qaeda and militants] don't appreciate Pakistan's interests and compulsions, then, like [US President George W] Bush said after 9/11, defeat is not an option. This is 2008, and we have the world's most modern army and equipment. This is not the time of British India, when only a regiment could fight against tribals, and defeat them. We can spare far more force and if we want to, we can destroy them," the official said.

Change in militants' tactics - Last week, militants used improvised explosive devices near Peshawar to blow up a military convoy. This is the first such incident of its kind near a city against the Pakistani army. Previously, such events only happened in the tribal areas.

This indicates that while the tribesmen might be facing a modern army, rather than the thin British force of years ago, the army now faces an urban guerrilla battle, not one limited to remote mountains.

Clearly, the militants, linked to a particular branch of al-Qaeda called the Tafkiris, are preparing for an Iraq-style guerrilla battle against Pakistan. The Tafkiris - who class as infidels all non-practicing Muslims - include Tahir Yuldashev, leader of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Sheikh Essa, Pakistani Baitullah Mehsud and some factions of banned Pakistani militant organizations.

The overriding objective of the Tafkiris goes beyond simple terror attacks. They aim to force Islamabad to either follow their dictates or become ensnared in the conflict against NATO. Better. Pakistan would stand neutral in this regional war theater. (See Military brains plot Pakistan's downfall Asia Times Online, September 26, 2007.)

Last Saturday, Pakistani security forces unearthed a militant cell operating from the military city of Rawalpindi and recovered a huge cache of weapons. It is believed militants were planning devastating attacks on military installations. However, massive terrors operations in the federal capital of Islamabad are the biggest fear. Some believe these might be just round the corner.

But the real danger is the aim to drive a wedge between Islamabad and the NATO-Washington nexus, which would leave Pakistan potentially fatally exposed to the militants.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief.

Afghanistan: Tempers Flare In Dispute Over Display Of Ancient Artifacts

By Ron Synovitz Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Decades of war have decimated much of Afghanistan's ancient heritage. Many historic architectural gems have been damaged or destroyed, and national treasures have been looted from museums or vandalized by the Taliban.

Amid the destruction, one Afghan expatriate has amassed a private collection containing thousands of artifacts -- some dating back thousands of years.

Ahmad Shah Sultani considers himself to be a savior of Afghanistan's cultural heritage. Though he has never learned to read or write, Sultani says he amassed a fortune and became an expert on Afghan artifacts as an antiquities dealer in Pakistan and London.

The former goldsmith's apprentice also says that he has spent millions of dollars during the past three decades for the 15,000 artifacts in his collection -- buying from other antiques dealers in Europe, Iran, Pakistan, and Dubai.

"I can't estimate any value for these pieces. Just the number of pieces," Sultani tells RFE/RL's Radio Free Afghanistan. "They are priceless because these are ancient and no amount of money can replace them."

But Sultani's attempts to return the artifacts to Afghanistan and display them at an historic citadel in Herat have been blocked by the Afghan Ministry of Information and Culture.

In 2005, when Sultani displayed about 3,000 artifacts from his collection at the National Gallery in Kabul, officials from the ministry praised his efforts to preserve Afghan culture.

The ministry also welcomed Sultani's plans to return more antiques to Afghanistan and establish as many as 20 museums around the country so that future generations of Afghans could learn about the culture of their forefathers.

Sultani also returned a few items he says he bought over the years that had been looted from the National Museum and National Gallery in Kabul.

Trading Accusations - But relations between Sultani and Kabul have soured since the appointment in 2006 of Abdul Karim Khoram as minister of information and culture.

That situation deteriorated further in recent weeks, with Khoram overruling a decision by Herat's provincial governor, Sayyad Hosayn Anwari, that would have allowed Sultani's collection to be housed at an ancient citadel in Herat known as Ekhtyaruddin Qala.

Work has been under way for years to transfer to the citadel what remains of government collections from the National Museum in Herat.

But Khoram announced last week that displaying a private collection at the ancient fortress would threaten the government's attempts to get UNESCO to declare the citadel a protected World Heritage site.

Khoram also said displaying Sultani's collection at the citadel could threaten new archaeological work under way there.

Tempers came to a head two weeks ago when Khoram questioned Sultani's story about how he obtained the artifacts in the first place -- suggesting that Sultani may have contributed to the destruction of Afghan culture by supporting those who have plundered national treasures.

"I will repeat it once more that we are not sure what this gentleman is doing and what his activities are," Khoram tells RFE/RL. "And we don't know anything about the [source] of the artifacts that he already has displayed in Kabul."

When asked about Khoram's remarks, Herat Governor Anwari responded angrily and accused the minister of complicity in the destruction of Afghanistan because of his membership in the Islamist fundamentalist faction Hizb-e Islami.

"Mr. Khoram, as a member of Hizb-e Islami, is responsible for destroying Afghanistan along with his gang of bandits," Anwari says. "How can he accuse us -- saying that we have done this everywhere. Afghanistan was destroyed because of the political party that [Khoram] is a member of. And now he accuses us of this? The Afghan government should take this case seriously and investigate it. But if we are blamed for ignoring orders of the central government or the Ministry of Information and Culture, then we demand an investigation."

Historic Ethnic, Political Rivalries - Jean MacKenzie, the Afghanistan country director for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, says the dispute is more than just an argument between government officials and would-be donors. She says the arguments reflect a broader trend in Afghanistan -- the resurgence of political and ethnic divisions that have plagued the country for decades.

"We've got the governor of Herat, who is [Hazara] -- a different ethnic group than the [ethnic Pashtun] minister of information and culture," MacKenzie says.

"And rather than debate the issue on its merits, he is throwing around character-assassination-type terms [against Khoram] like 'former commander' and bringing Hizb-e Islami into the picture, which raises the specter of fundamentalism," she continues. "And it is, of course, directed against the Pashtuns. So I think what we are seeing is more and more of this lack of debate where ethnic and political divides are coming more and more to the fore."

For his part, Sultani says he is so angry at Khoram that he will no longer try to establish museums across the country.

Sultani says that he has decided he won't allow his collection to be displayed in Afghanistan even if President Karzai overrules Khoram's decision against housing artifacts at Herat's ancient citadel.

[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.]