Published: July 17, 2008 at 12:15 PM - UPI

The NATO mission in Afghanistan is not related to the protection of the planned Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline, officials said. Afghan Ambassador to Canada Omar Samad told Canadian newspaper The Georgia Straight that construction on the $7.6 billion, 1,040-mile Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline will not be completed until after Canadian troops redeploy from Afghanistan in 2011. "So I fail to see what the relationship of this pipeline is with the Canadian mission," he said.

The Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives published a report on June 19 saying Taliban and insurgent activity in Kandahar province, where Canadian troops operate, puts the feasibility of the pipeline project in doubt. The report says southern regions in Afghanistan, including Kandahar, would have to be cleared of insurgent activity and land mines in two years to meet construction and investment schedules.

"Nobody is going to start putting pipe in the ground unless they are satisfied that there is some reasonable insurance that the workers for the pipeline are going to be safe," said Howard Brown, the Canadian representative for the Asian Development Bank, the major funding agency for the pipeline. Samad said, however, that tribal and Afghan security forces are sufficient to protect the pipeline.

"If there is a need to do something different," he said, "we will discuss it with whomever will be interested to do so, down the road ... beyond the Canadian mission."

Published: July 17, 2008 By Travis Lupick

Afghanistan’s ambassador to Canada says NATO’s military mission has nothing to do with a proposed massive pipeline project that will bring natural gas to his country’s neighbours. In a phone interview with the Georgia Straight, Omar Samad said the $7.6-billion pipeline won’t be finished before Canadian troops are scheduled to leave Afghanistan in 2011.

“So I fail to see what the relationship of this pipeline is with the Canadian mission,” Samad said from Ottawa.

On June 19, the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives published a report questioning the feasibility of the pipeline project, given the strength of the Taliban insurgency. Samad, however, said that the Afghan army and local security forces would provide security for the pipeline. “If there is a need to do something different,” he continued, “we will discuss it with whomever will be interested to do so, down the road…beyond the Canadian mission.”

The proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-India-Pakistan pipeline (TAPI) could generate as much as $300 million in annual revenue for the Afghan government, Samad said. Afghanistan’s National Development Strategy lists the country’s projected domestic revenue for March 21, 2008, to March 20, 2009, as $887 million.

When operational, the pipeline will transport 33 billion cubic metres of natural gas annually. Energy-hungry Pakistan and India are planning to share output equally, while Afghanistan will only receive a “small percentage” of the pipeline’s gas.

Written by energy economist John Foster, the CCPA’s report raises serious concerns about the project’s security. The planned route for the pipeline runs through Kandahar province, where most Canadian Forces combat operations in Afghanistan are taking place.

Speaking to the Straight from Ottawa shortly after the report’s release, Foster said that if they were to build the pipeline now, it could become “a massive target going right through Kandahar, the heart of the insurgency”.

According to the CCPA report, a Gas Pipeline Framework Agreement was signed by representatives of the project’s participating nations on April 25, 2008. That agreement committed those parties to beginning construction in 2010. Foster said that if TAPI’s security is to be counted on for investment by 2010, the entire southern region of Afghanistan will have to be cleared of land mines, and Taliban and al-Qaeda forces will have to be eliminated.

Foster said that in 40 years of working for such financial institutions as the World Bank, he has never made a loan that required a foreign army’s presence as a precondition for security.

The Asian Development Bank is coordinating the pipeline project. Speaking from Manila, Howard Brown, an executive director for the bank representing Canada, said that security concerns for TAPI definitely need to be addressed.

“Nobody is going to start putting pipe in the ground unless they are satisfied that there is some reasonable insurance that the workers for the pipeline are going to be safe,” he said.

Brown noted that a number of financial and engineering issues also still need to be worked out.

According to Thermo Design Engineering Ltd.’s president, Jim Montgomery, his company is probably the largest natural-gas contractor now operating in Turkmenistan, where TAPI will originate.

Thermo Design specializes in processing natural gas at its extraction site. Speaking from the company’s corporate headquarters in Edmonton, Montgomery confirmed that it is likely that Thermo Design will play some roll in TAPI.

He conceded that working in Central Asia can be politically challenging, with much less negotiating room than in North America. “There is always lots of suspicion in these countries, too,” he added. “You’re forever wired to your reputation and you have to be careful who you talk to and who you don’t.”

But Montgomery claimed that he is not especially concerned about TAPI’s security. He said that if “everybody is taken care of,” there will not be a significant security risk.

Asked if the pipeline could become a target for militant groups or terrorists, Montgomery said that any deal around the pipeline would likely include them, too.

“That happens all of the time,” he said. “If a deal was made with them [armed groups] and with the villages along the way, I think that that could be fairly secure.”

The CCPA report also raised questions about how TAPI could affect the Canadian Forces’ mission in Afghanistan.

André Gerolymatos, an SFU professor and expert in military and diplomatic history, pointed to the work of Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid in analyzing TAPI’s role in Afghanistan.

“It is all about the U.S. It has very little to do with Afghan development,” he said.

For Gerolymatos, TAPI is a geostrategic concern, not a development project. He noted that negotiations for an Afghan pipeline began under the Clinton administration, which held talks on the project with the Taliban government in the 1990s.

Gerolymatos said that he is highly skeptical that much of TAPI’s transit revenue will make it to Afghanistan’s ordinary citizens, or even to the Afghan government. He also suggested that a lot of money would have to be spent paying regional warlords not to attack the pipeline.

The Canadian Department of National Defence responded to an interview request with an e-mail stating that the DND is aware of a regional agreement on TAPI but “an interview on this matter will not be possible.”

Foster said that the answer to Ambassador Samad’s question about why Canada should take an interest in TAPI is clear. He emphasized that the pipeline is potentially Afghanistan’s largest development project and is planned to run right through the area where Canadian troops are most active.

Foster suggested that a better question would be to ask why the Canadian government has been silent on the project.

Abstract: (Angus Reid Global Monitor) - More adults in Canada believe the House of Commons was wrong to lengthen the country’s military mission in Afghanistan, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 58 per cent of respondents disagree with the decision to extend the mandate until the end 2011, up four points in two months.

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - More adults in Canada believe the House of Commons was wrong to lengthen the country’s military mission in Afghanistan, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 58 per cent of respondents disagree with the decision to extend the mandate until the end 2011, up four points in two months.

Afghanistan has been the main battleground in the war on terrorism. The conflict began in October 2001, after the Taliban regime refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, prime suspect in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people.

At least 866 soldiers—including 86 Canadians—have died in the war on terrorism, either in support of the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom or as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Canadians renewed the House of Commons in January 2006. The Conservative party—led by Stephen Harper—received 36.3 per cent of the vote, and secured 124 seats in the 308-member lower house. Harper leads a minority administration after more than 12 years of government by the Liberal party.

In May 2006, the House of Commons extended Canada’s mission in Afghanistan until February 2009. In March 2008, the House of Commons voted 198-77 to prolong the military deployment until the end of 2011. The Conservative and Liberal parties supported the motion, while the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc Québécois opposed it.

On Jul. 7, Afghanistan’s ambassador to Canada Omar Samad discussed the current state of affairs, saying, "This is what we’re facing today—an escalation. I think the upcoming year is going to be treacherous and dangerous for all of us involved with bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan."

Polling Data

As you may know, the House of Commons has authorized an extension of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan until the end of 2011, which is conditional on Canada coming up with unmanned aerial vehicles and transport helicopters, and NATO providing an additional 1,000 troops in the south. Do you agree or disagree with the decision to extend Canada’s mission in Afghanistan until the end of 2011?

Source: Angus Reid Strategies
Methodology: Online interviews with 1,004 Canadian adults, conducted on Jul. 2 and Jul. 3, 2008. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

Other poll highlights:

53% say Canadian mission in Afghanistan is a war mission
28% believe the Harper government has effectively explained the mission in Afghanistan
73% think Canada is shouldering too much of the burden of NATO’s mission in Afghanistan
59% claim the Afghan people are clearly benefiting from Canadian efforts in their country
35% would agree with the Canadian government actively negotiating with the Taliban

A suicide car bomb targeting India's embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan has left at least 41 people dead and nearly 150 others wounded.

Officials say Monday's incident is the deadliest in Kabul so far this year and since the Taliban were pushed from power in late 2001.

"This is what we're facing today -- an escalation," Omar Samad, Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada, told CTV Newsnet on Monday.

"I think the upcoming year is going to be treacherous and dangerous for all of us involved with bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan."

India is a major contributor to Afghanistan's reconstruction, he said.

The bomb -- which detonated about 8:30 a.m. local time -- knocked down a wall, damaged two embassy vehicles and destroyed several nearby shops.

India's foreign minister said from New Delhi that four Indians, including the military attache and a diplomat, died in the blast.

Five Afghan guards at the nearby Indonesian embassy also died.

"Several shopkeepers have died. I have seen shopkeepers under the rubble," said Ghulam Dastagir, a shopkeeper wounded in the blast.

Afghan men line up outside the embassy by the dozens every morning to apply for visas. At least two children are believed to have died in the blast.

President Hamid Karzai blamed the attack on militants trying to rupture the friendship between India and Afghanistan.

India's Minister of External Affairs said the attack would not stop India from "fulfilling our commitments to the government and people of Afghanistan."

India's ambassador and his deputy were not inside the embassy when the attack happened, said an Afghan foreign ministry spokesperson.

Taliban denies responsibility

No group has taken responsibility for the attack, and a Taliban spokesman denied involvement.

"Whenever we do a suicide attack, we confirm it," said Zabiullah Mujahid. "The Taliban did not do this one."

Some observers note the Taliban rarely claims credit for attacks in which Afghan civilians die.

"It really doesn't matter what the Taliban said," Samad said. "What is clear to the Afghan people is that we have enemies at the regional level beyond Afghanistan's borders. They are trying to undermine our relations with India. They are also trying to undermine our relations with Pakistan's elected government."

This threat is "very serious," he said.

Afghanistan's interior minister hinted that Pakistan's intelligence service may have had a role, saying, "Terrorists have carried out this attack in co-ordination and consultation with some of the active intelligence circles in the region."

Militants have frequently attacked Indian offices and projects in Afghanistan. Many Taliban are linked to Pakistan, which itself views Indian influence over Afghanistan with alarm. Pakistan supported the Taliban regime in the 1990s.

Pakistan's foreign minister said his country condemned this act and all terrorism.

The Indian embassy had beefed up its security in recent weeks, creating dirt-filled blast walls to protect against bombings. It is very near the Afghan interior ministry offices, which were targeted by a suicide bomber in September 2006. Security in the neighbourhood was stepped up after that attack.

Other attacks

Monday's attack is the sixth suicide bombing in Kabul so far this year, which also saw major security incidents:

January's attack on the Serena hotel, a popular spot for Westerners

An April attack on a parade marking the anniversary of the end of the Soviet occupation

"It's a very discouraging sign when this sort of stuff happens in the capital," Canadian Press reporter Alexander Panetta told Canada AM Monday from Kandahar.

"All the indicators you get from Afghanistan, at least the statistical ones, don't seem very good. The number of attacks are up, suicide bombings are up exponentially, the number of civilian deaths are up. Everything just seems to be increasing, at least on the negative side of the ledger."

There were other bombings Monday in Afghanistan:

A roadside bomb killed four police on patrol in Uruzgan province and wounded seven others.

A roadside bomb killed three police officers in Kandahar province's Zhari district and wounded three others.

Panetta said an Afghan legislator was gunned down in Zhari district on the weekend.

Canada lost its 87th soldier since 2002 when Pte. Colin Willmot died in an explosion while on foot patrol in the Panjwaii district of Kandahar province on Sunday.

With files from The Associated Press

Only about 10 to 12 per cent of the five million Afghans who have gone home since 2002 went to to places like Kandahar, a UN official says.

After almost one-third of its population fled seemingly endless wars between 1979 and 2001, Afghanistan's refugees have been returning home in droves, bringing with them both much-needed skills while posing trying challenges to the country's fledgling government.

However, the number of Afghan refugees heading back to the country is dropping off in the face of problems like high food prices and lack of land, and violence means the rates of return are even lower in the south.

Kabul-based Ewen MacLeod, deputy representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Afghanistan, was in Ottawa last week and briefed the media on Afghanistan's refugee situation.
Mr. MacLeod said that since 2001, some five million Afghan refugees have returned to their country.

Some three million Afghan refugees remain abroad today. Of them approximately one million are registered in Iran, close to two million in Pakistan, while hundreds of thousands more live in the West.

"We have witnessed one of the largest return movements in UNHCR's history," Mr. MacLeod said. "It's the largest return operation in the world and it shows every sign of continuing."

Also since 2001, he added, the number of internally displaced people in the country has dropped sharply from 1.1 million to 300,000.

The overall situation, he said, indicates that Afghans are seeing safety and opportunity back home.

"We believe that a number of these [refugees] are choosing to return to Afghanistan because, particularly in the eastern part of the country, there have been notable improvements to the economy and living conditions," he said.

But while 165,000 Afghans have returned home so far this year, Mr. MacLeod said overall repatriation rates have been falling off since 2004

High food prices, a shortage of arable farmland and better economic opportunities in Iran and Pakistan are slowing the flow. A lack of security, he added, is also a major discouraging factor in Afghan's refugees' decision-making rubric.

"We didn't anticipate the overall deterioration of the security situation," he said, explaining that the UNHCR expected return rates to remain higher than they are today.

In particular, Mr. MacLeod said, few refugees are returning to volatile southern Afghanistan.

"Returns to the south, historically, have been much lower than to any other part of Afghanistan," he said. "It's a reflection of the difficult economic challenges that the south has always faced. Overall, no more than 10 or 12 per cent of returns since 2002 have been to the south."

Afghan Government Faces Challenges

Afghan Ambassador to Canada Omar Samad told Embassy Friday that the flood of returning refugees is changing the face of his country.

Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, he said, the continuous outflow of refugees has sapped the country of the human capital and skills it had invested in.

Since 2001, he said, many professional cadres and other workers have returned home, bringing with them skills that are desperately needed to rebuild the country.

But Mr. Samad said it hasn't all been easy.

"[The return of refugees] has put a huge burden on the government and on international multilateral organizations," he said. "Overall it's been very tough, but also with a ray of hope."

Afghanistan, he said, has undergone an "urban explosion." Flush with returning refugees, he said, Kabul has swelled from less than one million to close to 4.5 million over the past six years.

"The pressure on the local governments, in terms of services, has been unbearable," he said.

But while the cities are bursting at the seams, the countryside is not always a good alternative to the city life.

Many villages and farmlands remain riddled with land mines, and disputes over land ownership are rife in a country without a history of organized public administration.

"We continue to have great needs in terms of resettlement in terms of transportation, demining their villages and field and providing minimum resources and tools for them to build a new life," Mr. Samad said.

The ambassador said his government is working closely with its neighbours to manage the return of the more than three million refugees still outside the country. To this end, the Afghan government and the UNHCR have signed tripartite agreements with the governments of both Pakistan and Iran on how to manage the flow of returning refugees.

Mr. Samad said it is important that Afghan refugees not be forced out of Iran and Pakistan.

"[Refugees] should come back home in voluntary basis in an honorable manner," he said. "We are hoping that neighbours are going to work with us and that Afghans are not arbitrarily forced out under very difficult circumstances."

Canada's role in facilitating the return of refugees to Afghanistan has been relatively minor.

Mr. Samad said that Canada has donated money in support of Afghan refugees through multilateral channels and has supported demining efforts.

However, he said, refugee issues are "not a top [Canadian] priority at this point."

jdavis@embassymag.ca

NEW YORK (PAN): As the political dust regarding continuation of Canada's military presence in Afghanistan has almost settled, fresh efforts have been launched to derail a mission crucial to peace and stability in the conflict-torn country.

For nearly 10 days now, reports have been appearing in the mainstream Canadian press, mostly front-page stories and editorials, that Ottawa has a secret mission in Afghanistan.

The news reports beginning from a front-page article in June 19 issue of the Globe and Mail - argue the secret mission is to protect the gas pipeline running from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India via Afghanistan.

No doubt, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline has strong support from the US, but it has not drawn a favourable response from the countries thus far. Instead, India, Pakistan and Iran have reached an agreement on a trilateral gas pipeline to meet energy needs of the South Asian neighbours.

With work on the project expected to get under way soon, it is unlikely that the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline plan would see the light of the day in the foreseeable future.

Having known all these factors, major Canadian publications have been running lead stories Canadian forces would provide security for the pipeline, which so far is only on papers and is unlikely to get off the ground.

The Afghan ambassador to Canada has been denying there is a secret mission behind the Canadian presence in Afghanistan. However, very few are willing to listen to his voice or the clarifications coming from the Canadian government.

"The UN-backed Afghan mission is not about a business deal. It is about building durable peace in a country that has experienced instability and insecurity for almost 30 years," Omar Samad told Pajhwok Afghan News on Sunday.

"This work in progress is also about developing a legal and competitive economy, and giving the Afghans the opportunity to build foundations for democracy and rule of law that reflect their aspirations," he argued.

"Furthermore, it is a mission whose goal is to prevent a relapse into chaos by making sure that terrorists and extremists do not regain a foothold and a base from which they can harm the Afghans and threaten the rest of the world," the envoy added.

Samad explained studies showed Afghanistan could reduce its dependence on foreign aid by at least $300 million a year through transit fees and other benefits from such a pipeline project.

"It is also estimated that under stable conditions, project start-up and completion timelines are not going to run into the Canadian mission's timelines. By then, the plan is for the new Afghan army and police to have overall security responsibilities," Samad concluded.

OMAR SAMAD Ambassador of Afghanistan to Canada

As enticing as this pipeline story may sound, it lacks an Afghan perspective. The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline project is not seen by the Afghan government as falling within the framework of the Canadian mission, even though, as a member of the International Security Assistance Force, Canada is committed till 2011 to helping us bring stability to Kandahar, one of several provinces along the proposed pipeline route.

The project is a regional initiative agreed upon by four nations, and Afghanistan is responsible for providing security on its territory, according to the terms agreed upon over the past five years.

The UN-backed Afghan mission is not about a business deal. It is about building durable peace in a country that has experienced instability and insecurity for almost 30 years.

For the record, depending on commodity prices in the future, studies show that Afghanistan can reduce its dependence on foreign aid by at least $300-million (U.S.) a year as a result of pipeline transit fees and other benefits. Under stable conditions, project startup and completion timelines are not expected to run into the Canadian mission's timelines. By then, the plan is for the Afghan army and police to have overall security responsibilities.

Canadian troops `are not going to stand by' if they see Afghans abused, defence chief says - June 18, 2008 - Joanna Smith IN OTTAWA Rick Westhead IN TORONTO – Toronto star

Canadian soldiers who witness civilians being raped have a duty to intervene, even if the assailants are Afghan soldiers or police, Canada's top soldier says.

"We have all the authority we need. We are there to help Afghans," Gen. Rick Hillier told the Commons defence committee yesterday. "If somebody is being seriously abused and we are witness to it, we are not going to stand by and see that continue.

"I expect young men and young women to have their actions mirror the values that they bring with them from Canada. We know that they do and I just want to make it absolutely clear: no ambiguity from this chief of defence staff," he said.

"Just in case there is any doubt of that, I have reconfirmed that direction through the entire chain of command into Kandahar province to make sure that the (chief of defence staff's) intent and our expectations as a nation are absolutely clear to all and sundry and they are."

Hillier said Canadian troops went through "a terrible time" when unable to intervene while witnessing atrocities in the former Yugoslavia, adding that "under the mission mandate, the rules of engagement and legal constraints, we had soldiers standing around and watching what was equivalent to ethnic cleansing and all of us know that."

Hillier said Canadian Forces are not in Afghanistan to investigate local police, but anyone witnessing abuse still has a duty to report it, and the chain of command has a duty to stop it.

"We are not the inspector-general for the Afghan national security forces, we don't believe in prying into all their details here," he said.

Omar Samad, Afghan ambassador to Canada, said yesterday he's "troubled and concerned" by allegations raised by Canadian military chaplains and a senior Canadian officer that soldiers have witnessed Afghan troops abusing young boys, but have been powerless to stop it because of orders.

"There's nothing normal or acceptable about these abuses," Samad said in an interview.

He said he had not heard the term "Man Sex Thursdays."

Several Canadian soldiers said translators have told them that some men assault boys Thursday nights before their call to prayer a day later.

"We have laws on the books and we will continue to prosecute people who are convicted of abuse."

In the Commons, Bloc Québécois MP Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean) said Canada has been complicit if soldiers have been ordered to ignore rape cases.

"Any suggestion that Canadian soldiers would deliberately turn a blind eye to assaults like this are abhorrent and should not be raised on the floor of the House of Commons," Defence Minister Peter MacKay responded. "We are absolutely committed to looking into these matters. I met again with leaders of the Canadian Forces, the Chief of the Land Staff, to see that we do a complete forensic examination of all evidence, to look into all these allegations and get to the bottom of it."

MacKay also asked opposition MPs to "show a modicum of respect for the timeframe that it takes to investigate and look into serious allegations such as this. Let us not cast aspersions without doing a little bit of research into the facts first."

Opposition MPs said later that the rape allegations were first raised more than a year ago.

The recent prison break in Kandahar and threats of cross-border raids into Pakistan have left diplomats ratcheting up the rhetoric.

Canadian-led efforts to pacify the dysfunctional Afghan-Pakistani border may be in jeopardy after a massive jailbreak in Kandahar and provocative statements by Afghan President Hamid Karzai about possible cross-border raids into Pakistan.

Some 1,000 inmates escaped when dozens of Taliban fighters sacked the sprawling Sarposa prison in Kandahar on Friday.

While many were common criminals, around 400 were reportedly captured Taliban insurgents. A security cordon was immediately struck to try to recapture the escapees, only a few dozen were recaptured.

Speaking to reporters Sunday, Mr. Karzai said his "patience was running thin" with cross-border Taliban raids.

"Afghanistan has the right of self-defense when they [the militants] cross territories," Mr. Karzai said. "It exactly gives us the right to go back and do the same."

Mr. Karzai also called out by name his foes across the Pakistani border.

"[Pakistani warlord] Baitullah Mehsud should know that we will go after him now and hit him in his house. And the other fellow, [Taliban leader] Mullah Omar of Pakistan, should know the same."

The security environment now remains tense as hundreds of militants amass in villages outside Kandahar and Canadian Forces face down fighters they may have captured in the very same area last year.

Embassy requested an interview with Pakistani High Commissioner Musa Javed Chohan to discuss Mr. Karzai's comments. It was not granted, but the Pakistanis submitted a written statement by email.

Pakistani High Commission spokeswoman Mamoona Amjed characterized Mr. Karzai's musings about mounting cross-border raids as "irresponsible," "unacceptable" and "threatening."

Ms. Amjed called the statements an affront to Pakistani sovereignty, adding that stabilizing Pakistani territory is Pakistan's business alone.

"On the Afghan side of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the Afghan National Army, ISAF and U.S. Army could take whatever action they want against the terrorists," she wrote. "On the Pakistani side of the border, it is the Pakistani troops who have the sole responsibility to take action.

"Pakistan shall defend its territorial sovereignty and will not allow anybody to interfere in its internal affairs," she continued. "Any statement that negated this basic principle and did not show respect for the territorial sovereignty would not help in the war on terrorism."

Ms. Amjed wrote that "the armed forces of Pakistan are fully capable to stop any insurgency," and reiterated the Pakistani position that a combination of political, socio-economic and military efforts are needed to bring a "permanent end to militancy."

Afghan Ambassador to Canada Omar Samad, however, expressed doubt about Pakistan's ability, or will, to evict the Taliban militants taking refuge in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), situated along the shared border.

In the past months, Mr. Samad said, security in the region has deteriorated.

"Since April we have seen a considerable increase in cross-border activity, infiltration and terrorist action in Afghanistan. That has to stop," he said. "It seems to us that over the past few months there is a weakening in the efforts by Pakistan to crack down on the most dangerous elements."

The cause of the problem, Mr. Samad implied, was the unilateral decision by the new Pakistani government to sign a peace agreement with Taliban militants in the FATA. In May, Pakistan's newly-elected government signed a deal with the FATA stipulating that the Pakistani government will gradually draw down military forces in the areas in exchange for militants laying down their arms.

Mr. Samad says the deal, done without Afghan consent, externalizes violence on his country.

"Entering into negotiations and talks on one side of the border is a half-cooked measure that does not encompass a comprehensive solution that would resolve the issue once and for all," he said. "All it does is shift the pressure on the Afghan side, on the Afghan people, and on coalition and ISAF forces, including Canadians."

As for President Karzai's comments, Mr. Samad took a step back, signalling that cross-border raids by Afghan forces are not imminent.

"Those statements were by no means meant to further irritate relations," he said. "We respect Pakistan's territorial integrity and its sovereignty."

Nevertheless, he said, Mr. Karzai's statements echo the concerns of Afghans.

"[The comments] were meant to highlight a very serious issue that is on the minds of every Afghan, and the president of Afghanistan's duty is to reflect that," he said. "The Afghan people are upset by the continued activity of militants crossing our borders, coming into Afghanistan, killing our women and children, torching our schools, and posing a threat, a direct threat, to our national security and wellbeing."

Such heated rhetoric from both Afghan and Pakistani officials does not bode well for ongoing Canadian-led diplomatic efforts to pacify the border by facilitating bilateral dialogue.

And while Mr. Samad said Canada's efforts are welcome, more existential concerns are on the minds of Afghans.

"It is a positive initiative, but these types of initiatives will not eventually yield any results unless we take care of the security threat that exists," he said. "We cannot be talking management, trade, people-to-people issues on one hand, and on the other hand be attacked, continuously attacked, by extremists and terrorists."

Defence Minister Peter MacKay, while in London last week after the raid, criticized the Pakistani government's recent decision to strike a deal with the FATA and draw down its military forces in the region.

"With a new government, there was hope that this was going to lead to greater, more robust participation on their part. It hasn't quite turned out that way," Mr. MacKay told reporters. "In fact, some would argue that it may get worse if they're cutting deals with the Taliban."

Appearing on CTV's Question Period on Sunday, Mr. MacKay reiterated his appeal to the Pakistanis.

"We need the co-operation of the surrounding countries, most notably Pakistan," he said. "The Pakistan government is very aware, particularly in the south, of the insurgency that is coming from their country into Afghanistan, and that has to be addressed."

Mr. MacKay called for calm and for both countries to resume attempts at a diplomatic solution for the border.

The man leading Canadian border diplomacy efforts, Canadian Ambassador to Afghanistan Arif Lalani, declined to comment on the recent developments.

In a scrum Monday, Foreign Affairs Minister David Emerson said he does not think Mr. Karzai's threat of cross-border raids is truly reflective of Afghan national policy.

"The president, I think, was under an awful lot of pressure and probably shocked at what happened [at Sarposa Prison]," he said. "[It was] an unfortunate statement."

Mr. Emerson added that "we think diplomacy is the way to go in dealing with Pakistan," and that Canada would continue in its efforts to reinforce border co-operation.

He agreed, however, that the Pakistanis needed to step up their efforts on the border.

Fresh criticism also came from the Senate defence committee last week, which labelled Pakistan a "bad neighbour" in their newly-released report "How Are We Doing in Afghanistan? Canadians Need to Know."

The report discusses the role of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in the region, and says residents in Kandahar's Panjwaii district told committee members on a recent trip that the ISI was "actively attempting to destabilize Afghanistan."

The report describes the border as "flimsy" and speaks about the disenfranchisement of the Pashtun tribes who live on the border, and their lack of loyalty to the Karzai regime.

jdavis@embassymag.ca

By Jeff Davis - Embassy, June 4th, 2008

While Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan has been leading diplomatic efforts to secure the Afghan-Pakistan border, both countries are calling for the other to get serious about stopping the Taliban insurgents who crisscross the porous border with apparent ease.

Meanwhile, a visiting U.S. diplomat has issued a clarion call for a broader regional compact that would see Afghanistan's neighbours get their acts together.

In an interview with Embassy last week, Mr. Lalani said that he has been working for months to help bring together Afghan and Pakistani officials so they can improve management of their shared border.

The almost 2,500-kilometer-long border has been a nagging problem for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the international community, including Canadian troops based in Kandahar. It is widely known that Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters use the Pakistani border areas as safe havens from which to prepare and launch attacks into Afghanistan.

Mr. Lalani said his Canadian-led border co-operation effort began six months ago, when he and his senior staff brought together officials from various ministries on both sides of the border.

The initial meeting, held in Dubai, involved officials from both countries' ministries of foreign affairs, interior, and trade promotion.

After a brief hiatus during the recent Pakistani election, the process resumed with two more meetings in Pakistan. The next two meetings are scheduled to be held in Afghanistan.

The first success, Mr. Lalani said, was getting the process started.

"Accomplishment one was getting them together, because they weren't getting together on their own," he said. "It was Canada that brought them together."

At the table, Mr. Lalani said Canada tries to impart lessons learned through managing its own border with the United States. The goal, he said, is a border that is open, accessible and secure.

This is essential, he said, to the economic development of Afghanistan

"If we're going to get trade going, they need to have a secure, reliable border to get their products out," he said.

Mr. Lalani said he is working with Afghan and Pakistani officials to develop a joint agenda for border improvement projects. This agenda now includes improvement to border infrastructure, building and upgrading of border stations and the training of guards.

Mr. Lalani said that once the two countries develop their joint agenda, he hopes to bring the plan to the G8, which could provide both financial and political support to help make the agenda a reality.

But for now, he said, he is concentrating on removing some very basic wrenches from the gears of border machinery.

For example, he said, "they don't even have an agreement on the common opening times on each side of border."

While Canada is trying to foment Afghan-Pakistani co-operation along the border, there remain strong indications the two sides aren't seeing eye to eye as each is calling on the other to step up its game and crack down on the violent extremists hurting both countries prospects for peace and prosperity.

Afghan Ambassador to Canada Omar Samad told Embassy last week that he appreciates Canada's efforts to boost border co-operation.

"We welcome any international efforts, including Canada's, to help us bring stability to the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan through any non-military initiatives that would promote understanding and trade co-operation," he said.

However, Mr. Samad expressed concern with Taliban strongholds in Pakistan's border regions.

"Afghanistan's security concerns are tied to regional dynamics," he said. "To seek a real and comprehensive solution to some of the outstanding issues, [addressing] terrorist safe havens, training grounds and channels of funding have to be part of such a solution."

Mr. Samad also expressed displeasure with the new Pakistani government's decision to sign a peace agreement with Taliban militants in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the border. The May deal stipulates that the Pakistani government will gradually draw down military forces in the areas in exchange for militants laying down their arms.

Mr. Samad called the move, which was done against American advice, "one-sided."

"If it's not as part of comprehensive, all-party agreement, it may not be a solution for all of us," he said. "Because the threat is of a transnational nature, you need to look for solutions that are not just local but also address all other aspects of the problem."

While acknowledging Taliban are taking refuge in his country, Pakistani Ambassador to Canada Musa Javed Chohan disagreed that his country is not pulling its weight on the border.

"Its best to avoid the blame game," he said,

Mr. Chohan said that Pakistan is a "frontline state" in the War on Terror, and is working hard to stem the flow of insurgents across the mountainous border.

"We are taking very rigorous action," he said, adding that there are more than 100,000 Pakistani troops manning 1,000 military posts along the border. Just this year, he added, some 1,500 of these troops have died in combat.

To underline the point, Mr. Chohan said the number of troops Pakistan has on the border exceeds the NATO/ISAF contingent in Afghanistan.

Mr. Chohan said the Pakistani government had considered deploying land mines on the border but decided against it. The next idea was fencing off a high-traffic section of the border near the tribal areas, but he said this effort was frustrated by protests from Afghan authorities.

So who needs to do more? Mr. Chohan says it's the Afghans.

"We do hope the Afghan authorities would do more to address the issues," he said. "The problem is in Afghanistan. Its an Afghan problem."

However, Mr. Chohan said, military efforts alone will not be enough to settle the problems in the volatile tribal areas.

He said Pakistan's strategy is to increase stability by boosting the socio-economic wellbeing of marginalized tribals. While military force will be used against those that refuse to put down their weapons, he said, those that do are welcome to return to the national political fold.

"Political engagement is possible only with those who renounce militancy and violence; don't allow the use of our territory against any other country, and do not help foreign terrorist elements to find hideouts in our territory," Mr. Chohan said.

Mr. Chohan said the government is also trying to improve the incomes of impoverished FATA residents. The government has established so-called "reconstruction opportunity zones" to try to create industrial jobs and boost incomes.

He said his government has proposed to the United States that it allow duty-free access to the U.S. market for products made in the special zones. He added that he has proposed a similar deal to Canada.

"You have to promote the socio-economic development of that region which is very poor and backward," he said. "[We need to] establish industry so people there are gainfully employed."

Last week, former U.S. assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs Karl Inderfurth visited Ottawa to spread around some big ideas about how to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan.

Mr. Inderfurth, who worked on the recent Afghanistan Study Group Report, said at a speech at the University of Ottawa that a broader regional approach is needed to stabilize Afghanistan.

Mr. Inderfurth pointed out that the Afghanistan Study Group, the Atlantic Council of the United States, the UN Security Council, the "vision document" produced at the NATO Bucharest conference and Canada's own John Manley-headed Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan are unanimous in calling for increased focus on regional diplomatic cohesion.

Quoting the Afghanistan Study Group Report, Mr. Inderfurth said that "to reach the international goal of stable and peaceful Afghanistan, Kabul needs to have better and more reliable relations with its neighbours and the major states of Asia—Russia, India and China. Achieving this calls for a much more comprehensive and sustainable diplomatic effort to engage all regional players."

He added that engaging Iran, India, the states of Central Asia and, of course, Pakistan are also crucial.

To increase regional co-operation, Mr. Inderfurth is calling for an international conference, led by UN Special Representative in Afghanistan Kai Eide, to be held to bring together all concerned parties.

"Over the longer term...the UN should convene a high level international conference attended by all Afghanistan's neighbours and other concerned major powers," he said. "The goals would be a multilateral compact that recognizes Afghanistan's borders, pledges non-interference in Afghanistan's internal affairs, explicitly bans the supply of arms to non-governmental actors and affirms that... Afghanistan be recognized as a permanently neutral state."

Unless a more coherent regional approach can be crafted, he said, NATO's gambit in Afghanistan could fail.

"Without a genuine long-term commitment on the part of US, Canada and the international community we will fail again," he said. "And they and we will again pay a grievous price."

jdavis@embassymag.ca

By Lee Berthiaume - Embassy, June 18th, 2008

Despite applause from Afghan officials over the years for channelling aid through multilateral funds, Ambassador Omar Samad says change is necessary.

Over the years, numerous Afghan ministers and senior government officials have passed through Ottawa, meeting with their Canadian counterparts and occasionally the media to discuss the situation in the Central Asian country.

Often when discussing Canadian aid, the subject turned to funding mechanisms like the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, set up in 2002 to pool foreign aid funding from around two dozen international donors for use by the Afghan government.

The Afghan officials always lauded the fact that the majority of Canadian aid was directed through such funds, enabling the Afghan government to implement the projects it deemed necessary and helping the entire country, not just Kandahar.

"We like this system in place because it increases donor confidence. It enables the government of Afghanistan to spend effectively and accountably," Afghan Education Minister Haneef Atmar said last October.

Now, senior officials say Canada will be funnelling much less money through such funds and spending less on national-level programs as part of its shift to increase the amount of Canadian aid going into Kandahar from 17 to 50 per cent and decision to focus on three so-called signature projects.

However, despite past applause from Afghan officials, Afghan Ambassador Omar Samad and CIDA Minister Bev Oda have played down concerns the move will affect donor co-ordination or undermine the Afghan national government's legitimacy.

"Development requires continuous adjustment," Mr. Samad said Monday. "Aid effectiveness means that you need to change and modify a position if need be to make it more effective and to make it more successful. So at this point, we have reached a stage where we need to balance things in such a way that we do not put all our eggs in one basket."

On June 10, Foreign Affairs Minister David Emerson, Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Ms. Oda held a press conference to release the Cabinet committee on Afghanistan's first report.

The report included six policy priorities with objectives that will be measured by specific benchmarks. According to a Privy Council Office Afghan task force official, those benchmarks, such as the number of Afghan National Army soldiers that must be trained and equipped in Kandahar, are still being developed and should be made public later this summer.

On the aid side, the ministers said an additional $600 million has been promised through to 2011, bringing to $1.9 billion the amount Canada will have contributed to aid over 10 years.

In addition, they said Canada will spend around $200 million on three signature projects in Kandahar: Building 50 schools in the province; support for the rehabilitation of the Dahla Dam and its irrigation and canal system; and expanded support for polio immunizations.

Finally, they revealed the government will shift 17 per cent of aid funding going to Kandahar to 50 per cent.

The following day, David Mulroney, deputy minister of the Privy Council Office's Afghanistan task force, appeared before the Special Committee on Canada's Role in Afghanistan where he confirmed that the multilateral trust funds will be hit by the new focus.

"We're in some cases phasing out and in other cases we will reduce our payments so that we can focus more on Kandahar," he said. "This is a direct reflection of the observations made by the Manley panel that too much of our assistance was going to these, one or two levels removed.

"We didn't have a hands-on, eyes-on sense of how we were having an impact on the ground. It wasn't being as directly felt. It was too long term."

While Mr. Mulroney didn't provide specifics, he said some of the national-level programs and multilateral funds will still receive Canadian aid, mostly those that keep the Afghan government running and those run by Canadians NGOs.

"We don't have to do everything at the national level and at the Kandahar level," he said. "There are programs that others can step in behind us and fund—we're the third largest funder—while we get to work and deliver on real change in Kandahar.

"So we will try to minimize the impact on programs that resonate with Canadians that are important. But there will be an impact at the national level as we try to do more in Kandahar."

The following day, donors met in Paris to discuss the future of Afghanistan and agreed to, among other things, increase support for national and sub-national state institutions in Afghanistan, channel more aid through the Afghan national government budget and ensure the benefits of development reach all provinces equitably.

Speaking to Embassy that same day, Ms. Oda dismissed suggestions the new focus on Kandahar will undermine those objectives.

"The co-ordination aspect is not going to be a challenge at all," she said. "This is something that Canada led the discussion on, and now we're seeing that many, many agencies and organizations are going to be taking action on co-ordination, so it's not going to be a problem.

"We have a significant presence still nationally. Our influence is not only measured by dollar contribution. It's measured by good measurement and our ability to be co-operative workers with other donors."

"We are very happy to see that, aside from the military contributions Canada is making in terms of stability, it is matching it with very meaningful aid," Ambassador Samad said when asked about the increase in Canadian aid.

At the same time, he said, his government is fully in favour of the shift in Canada's aid focus. In fact, he added, Canadian and Afghan officials worked together to identify what would eventually be the three signature projects.

He said that while it was beneficial for Canada to channel most of its aid through trust funds during the early stages of Afghanistan's recovery, the time has come to change tactics.

"We can't say that there's one model that works better than others," he said. "If you've tried one and it has reached a certain level of saturation, then you need to look at what else is missing. And in this case, there were some models that lacked attention."

To that end, Mr. Samad indicated it was time to address the needs of average Afghans.

"When Afghans are asking for electricity, we need to look at our resources, we need to look at the raw material that is required and the structures that are needed in order to provide them with the energy that is needed," he said. "Seven years is a very long time for the Afghans to be patient with very little electricity available. Now is the time to focus on these high-value initiatives."

There has been concern raised by some that signature projects will undermine the Afghan national government's legitimacy as the government has to be seen to be helping average citizens. Mr. Samad dismissed such suggestion.

"Those people who are so concerned about such issues not only, in my opinion, have to be more flexible with their approach," he said. "Afghans like to say a hundred years from now or two generations from now that such road or such hydro-electric dam or such hospital was built by Canadians, and they will do that."

As for whether donor co-ordination will suffer, the ambassador said he wasn't worried.

"Each donor's policy is going to not only align itself with the Afghan National Development Strategy, but also with those pillars that are central to each country's focus," he said. "So depending on what the focus of each donor is, the realignment and the redefinition of the policy and the aid delivery mechanisms will be adjusted."

Oxfam Canada president Robert Fox wasn't convinced and recalled warnings against such projects and a provincial focus delivered by six female Afghan parliamentarians when they visited Ottawa in March.

"We're creating perverse incentives to instability because we're devoting our aid to parts of the country where there's the greatest conflict," he said, "and there are other parts of the country which are more poor and where investments in development would have a bigger impact and that are going without.

"For us to shift from 17 per cent to 50 per cent in Kandahar means that our security agenda is trumping our development agenda."

lee@embassymag.ca

By Michelle Collins - Embassy, June 11, 2008

As author Janice Gross Stein tells it, the political decisions that have led to Canada's deepening combat role in Afghanistan were, for the most part, made in haste with little known about the realities on the ground.

In her book, The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar, co-authored with Eugene Lang, Ms. Stein calls it the unexpected war because Canada's mission has spiralled from a short-term troop commitment to a now-seven-year-long engagement that will see Canadian troops remain another two years, at least.

During this time, three prime ministers, six defence ministers and six ministers of foreign affairs have had their say.

Not three years ago, the Commons' defence and foreign affairs committees paid little attention to what was unfolding in the Central Asian country. It was not until Prime Minister Stephen Harper chose to extend the mission beyond 2007, even as Canadian casualties multiplied, that most parliamentarians thought to immerse themselves in learning about the troubles that haunt Afghanistan.

Moreover, it was last year's Manley Report that signified a turning point on the Hill around the political posturing over the mission.

Now, as per a recommendation in the Manley Report, a select group of MPs from all parties meets weekly to hear from experts, debate, and eventually to make recommendations to the prime minister. However, not all members are happy with the results to date.

Committee Adds Focus: Rae

One night two Wednesdays ago, parliamentarians gather around the committee table, flipping through the paperwork in front of them as they finish up a quick dinner provided in a spread at the back of the room.

There is a relaxed camaraderie as MPs exchange greetings, and there is the distinct impression that partisanship is largely set aside in recognition of the matter that's brought them together.

It is the fifth meeting of the Commons' Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, the newest of 26 committees in this 39th Parliament. As part of their mandate to keep the public informed, all meetings are televised and all transcripts are posted on the Internet.

In the near future, this committee will be the only group studying Afghanistan, as the defence and foreign affairs committees will cease to do so, says committee chair and Conservative MP Pierre Lemieux.

"Because we are a special committee that has been formed from a motion in Parliament, which resulted from the Manley report, we have a lot of credibility and people are very responsive to us," Mr. Lemieux says.

Tonight, the members will hear from two witnesses, former CIA station chief to Afghanistan Graham Fuller and Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan, Arif Lalani. The previous four weeks of testimony have seen other high-profile witnesses, such as UN Special Representative for Afghanistan Kai Eide, Afghan Ambassador to Canada Omar Samad, and the man at the helm of the government's Afghanistan task force, David Mulroney, appear before members.

Tonight, Mr. Fuller's description of Afghanistan paints a negative picture, a worsening situation in which Afghanis are driven into radicalism by an anti-Western occupation mentality.

"I just do not believe that the goals that have been established by Washington, NATO, and other participants have been achieved," Mr. Fuller tells the committee. "I wish I could say Canada is appreciated in the region as a totally independent power, unfortunately most Afghans see it as associated with an American project."

In its five weeks of existence, Mr. Fuller is acknowledged as being the first witness to bring such a perspective to the committee. This fact has left some opposition members frustrated at the "rosy" picture they say is too often delivered.

Of their work, all members express hope they will be able to bring about a clearer direction for Canada's mission.

As Liberal Foreign Affairs critic Bob Rae explains, Canada does not have a strong tradition of parliamentary direction over military missions, and this is the first time Parliament has embarked on such a level of accountability.

"The one thing I've heard from people is that I do think the existence of the committee has helped to kind of focus government a bit more on what are we hoping to achieve as a country," Mr. Rae says. "Particularly since the Manley Report, I have sensed a change in the language and in some of the approaches that not just our government, but a number of other governments, are taking as well...I think those military deadlines are becoming more meaningful."

Gerald Keddy, parliamentary secretary to the minister of international trade, says no one believes Canada can unilaterally withdraw all the forces as soon as the deadline hits, so it's important the committee explore what the options will be.

"At the end of the day, the committee's task is to find common and not-common ground that will help us to eventually reduce our commitment in Afghanistan and leave a country that is capable and standing on its own feet," Mr. Keddy says. "I certainly accept the vastness of the task, but I very much believe it's something we can accomplish."

Recognizing that Afghanistan's government remains rooted in Islam and will likely never mirror Western models is just one of the issues Mr. Keddy views as crucial to understanding Afghanistan.

However, when it comes to bringing results for Canadians, some members are less optimistic about the committee.

Bloc Québécois Defence critic Claude Bachand says he has been frustrated with the lack of access committee members are granted to government documents.

"I'm kind of fed up with these briefings where we always have rosy glasses and they say everything's going fine, that progression there is extraordinary," Mr. Bachand says. "I've been there last year and it wasn't improving at all."

The Bloc is opposed to Canada's mission in Afghanistan, and Mr. Bachand says if the reports produced are based largely on government sources who consistently present positive accounts, it will not have his party's support.

Also opposed to the war, NDP Defence critic Dawn Black says she thinks it will be a challenge for the committee to fulfil its mandate if government sources are not permitted to speak freely. She says too often their message is dictated by the Privy Council Office.

"We need the government to be open with this, we hear the same sort of thing, we don't hear the whole picture," Ms. Black says. "Up till now we've had a government that's been selling the war to the Canadian people, I don't think they've been open about the true challenges and if it's in Canada's interest to do so."

Over the summer, the committee hopes to travel together to Washington D.C., and to the United Nations in New York to meet with American, NATO and UN officials.

"I think that trip will give us an opportunity to work together to sort through some issues and some questions that are on peoples' minds and I think those things will help us as we go forward, will help to cement us," Mr. Rae says.

The committee hopes to also hear from Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier, NATO military committee chairman Gen. Ray Henault, Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Public Security Minister Stockwell Day, International Trade Minister David Emerson and International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda.

By the fall, the committee hopes to also travel to Afghanistan to see first-hand the work being done by Canadian forces.

mcollins@embassymag.ca

Juliet O'Neill, Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, May 08, 2008

Samad made the comment at a Commons committee as he urged Canada to support a request by Afghanistan to ensure a greater portion of international aid arriving in the country is channelled through the government, rather than non-government organizations and private companies.

Afghanistan will make that case at an international donors' conference next month in Paris, where authorities will discuss the fate of billions of dollars in assistance.

Canada's aid pledge to Afghanistan will total about $1.2 billion by the end of 2011.

The ambassador said between 70 and 80 per cent of the foreign aid invested in Afghanistan does not flow through the government and that it is the government that is subject to "strict" controls and supervision by such international organizations as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Asian Development Bank. He said non-government recipients should be held accountable as well.

"The notion that your money ends up in Afghanistan government officials' pockets doesn't really translate into reality in Afghanistan," he said. "There are other types of resources that may end up in people's pockets but I can assure you there is no evidence so far that shows that your taxpayer's money ends up in somebody's pocket or somebody's bank account somewhere."

He was responding to a question from Toronto Liberal MP Bryon Wilfert, who said corruption must be dealt with head-on as countries contribute to Afghanistan's reconstruction. NDP MP Alexa McDonough quoted from a report which said two-thirds of the international aid bypasses the Afghanistan government, including 100 per cent of aid from the U.S.

She expressed concern that without more Afghanistan government control of aid funds, the poorest people of the country would be neglected. It is the poor, she said, "who become ripe for recruitment to insurgencies."