[Afghan News] May 3, 2012

[یاسمینه]

Afghanistan security deal Obama signed has holes
By ANNE GEARAN | Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The 10-year security compact that President Barack Obama signed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai contains promises the United States and Afghanistan cannot guarantee they will keep, and loopholes for both nations.
The deal signed Tuesday also allows either nation to walk away on a year's notice. That could allow the next U.S. president, or the next Afghan leader, to scuttle a deal negotiated by his or her predecessor.
For Obama, the agreement represents a compromise with Karzai after messy negotiations over U.S. military detention of Afghan suspects and raids on Afghan homes that offend Afghans.
U.S. concessions were relatively small, however, and the deal Obama signed in Kabul is probably the best one he could get on a tight deadline. He wants to showcase a long-term commitment to Afghan stability when he hosts NATO leaders for a summit in Chicago later this month. U.S. officials said the deal is legally binding, but it does not carry the force of a treaty as Afghanistan originally wanted.
Obama called the agreement historic, and said it "defines a new kind of relationship between our countries — a future in which Afghans are responsible for the security of their nation, and we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states."
The deal pledges Afghanistan to fight corruption, improve efficiency and protect human rights, including women's rights. All are areas where the United States already finds fault with Afghan performance, and Afghanistan has promised improvement on corruption many times before. The nine-page agreement spells out no consequences if those or other goals are not met.
The agreement uses even looser language to address the production and trafficking of illegal drugs in Afghanistan, a major opium producer. Both nations affirm that illicit drugs undermine security and legitimate economic growth but promise only to cooperate to confront the threat.
The United States promises to seek annual funding to train and equip the Afghan armed forces but gives no dollar figure. That money must be approved by Congress, which has so far supported the Obama administration's plan to build up the Afghan forces. There is growing concern in Congress, however, about the quality of those forces, and the billions of dollars they would need over 10 years is not assured.
The agreement promises ongoing U.S. investment in a variety of development, health, education and support projects aimed at helping the poor nation one day support itself, and it commits the United States to seek annual funding from Congress "commensurate with the strategic importance of the U.S.-Afghan partnership."
U.S. officials said they cannot make a more specific pledge because Congress controls the purse strings.
The agreement, which takes effect when U.S. and other foreign combat forces leave in 2014, also is not the last word on whether the United States leaves a much smaller contingent of troops in Afghanistan after that date.
Both of the current leaders want such a residual force. But if Iraq is a guide, the rationale for a continued U.S. military presence on the soil of a Muslim nation could change, or new leadership in Washington or Kabul could decide on a different path.
Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby said the "strategic partnership agreement" is not intended to address the specific terms of an ongoing military relationship. The agreement pledges the two nations to begin work on a more detailed pact, and sets a goal of one year to complete it.
"Clearly if you're going to have troops remaining in Afghanistan, you're going to have to have some guidelines that govern that," Kirby said. "What form it takes and what title it has ... we're just not there yet."
The U.S. promises to name Afghanistan a "major non-NATO ally," a loose term meant to underscore U.S. commitment to Afghan stability but not one that would automatically bind the U.S. to come to Afghanistan's defense if it were attacked. The deal does say that the United States would "regard with grave concern any external aggression against Afghanistan," and promises urgent consultation on a diplomatic, military or other response.
The agreement also sets in writing previous assurances from U.S. leaders that the United States will not build permanent military bases in Afghanistan or use its soil to launch hostile attacks on its neighbors. That does not preclude U.S. military and intelligence units from sharing space at Afghan bases, but if honored would prevent the United States from launching any future strike on Iran from inside Afghanistan.
Karzai had sought the deal as a measure of U.S. dedication to protect and underwrite his poor but strategically located country. He is worried about a political and military resurgence of the Taliban insurgency once tens of thousands of foreign forces leave, and U.S. officials share that concern.
Karzai, however, is scheduled to leave office in 2014, probably just before the new agreement would take effect.
His successor is unclear, as is the future of a political outreach to the Taliban that might draw the movement or its surrogates into some kind of power-sharing arrangement. All are factors that could affect whether Afghanistan continues to want such a deal with the United States.
Either nation can quit the agreement with one year's written notice. If both parties want to cancel it they can do so by mutual agreement at any time.
The deal was announced the same day the Pentagon said in a new report that the counter-insurgency campaign is making good progress on the military side, but little progress on issues that depend on cooperation from the Afghan and Pakistani governments.
"The Afghan government continues to face widespread corruption that limits its effectiveness and legitimacy and bolsters insurgent messaging," the semi-annual report to Congress said.
It identified safe havens in Pakistan where insurgents hide and re-arm for attacks on U.S. and Afghan forces as "the most critical threat" to the war effort.
___
Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor and Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report.

Afghanistan: Pakistani driving truck bomb arrested
Associated Press
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Afghanistan's intelligence agency prevented a large terrorist attack, arresting a Pakistani citizen driving a truck packed with explosives, according to a statement Thursday.
The agency said in the statement that the man was arrested on a main road in Kabul's east. It said the man was going to use the truck bomb in a suicide attack, but it was unclear if the attack was imminent.
The agency did not say what the suspected target was. It pledged to release more details as they became available.
The arrest came a day after a suicide attack on the same road killed seven people. In that attack, one militant detonated his car bomb outside a compound where foreigners live, while two other attackers dressed as women fought their way inside before being killed.
In eastern Paktya province, six Taliban militants were killed and two others wounded Thursday when the roadside bomb they were building in a mosque exploded, said Roullah Samon, a spokesman for the provincial governor. He said four of those killed were foreign fighters.

20 Afghan Taliban killed in western province
HERAT, Afghanistan, May 3 (Xinhua) -- Afghan forces have killed 20 Taliban militants in Farah province in western Afghanistan over the past three days, police said Thursday.
"Afghan security forces including police and army launched a major offensive against Taliban militants in Khak-e-Safid district on Tuesday and so far 20 insurgents have been killed," police chief of the province Mohammad Ghous Malyar told Xinhua.
A huge quantity of arms and ammunition and 70 motorbikes, used by Taliban in anti-government activities have also been seized by security forces, he said.
Five security personnel including two police and three soldiers have been wounded, he added.

US must focus on upcoming leadership change in Afghanistan
When Obama made his secret visit to Afghanistan yesterday, he emphasized America's security role. The US needs to focus on helping Afghanistan build its political and governing capabilities. The Afghan presidential election looms with no plan for a smooth transition of power.
By Javid Ahmad | Christian Science Monitor
The exit sign is blinking in Afghanistan. Yesterday, President Obama secretly traveled to Kabul and signed a pact outlining US support for Afghanistan after the troop pullout in 2014. He also spoke to Americans about the war in a prime-time address.
The US focus is, and has been, primarily on security support for Afghanistan. But what about Afghanistan’s political transition? The Afghan presidential election is also slated for 2014, but the buzz is that it may be moved up to 2013 to avoid overlap with the planned NATO troop drawdown.
Yet there is still no practical plan for a smooth transfer of political power. Policymakers should be asking what the Afghan and US governments could do to ensure a smooth transfer without leaving behind a looming political vacuum and potential civil strife.
While Afghanistan has traditionally lacked effective national leadership, the Afghan and US governments over the years have failed to develop a mature political class from which the Afghan people can democratically select its leaders.
This failure extends to the civil service, which is largely corrupt and inept and operates under a vast network of political patronage and nepotism. Ten years and counting since the US invaded Afghanistan to oust the Taliban and wipe out its support for al Qaeda, the Afghan civil service is still incapable of delivering basic services to the Afghan people.
Meanwhile, concern is growing in Kabul that Mr. Karzai may attempt to “pull a Putin” at the next election.
As with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2008, Karzai is not eligible to run for a third term. However, it is now speculated that he will hand pick a successor who will serve as president while Karzai retains his strongman status and runs the show from behind the scenes – keeping the seat warm until Karzai’s return.
Depending on whom Karzai might pick as his successor, such a move would spark outrage among many in Afghanistan, specifically among members of the opposition group, the erstwhile Northern Alliance.
Several names are in play, including Qayum Karzai, the president’s multimillionaire older brother, influential in Afghan politics and security.
However, President Karzai’s personal favorite may be Farooq Wardak, the current minister of education. Like Karzai, Mr. Wardak is a Pashtun. The two have a close relationship. If Karzai chooses to publicly announce his support for a potential Wardak candidacy, that could garner widespread public support among Pashtun voters who would likely rally to get him elected. Despite his lack of charisma, Wardak is regarded as one of Karzai’s most competent cabinet ministers.
THE MONITOR'S VIEW: On anniversary of Osama bin Laden death, did Obama take too much credit?
True or not, there is a growing perception in Afghanistan that the US is trying to be a political kingmaker in domestic politics. Recent outreach to Afghan political figures by several members of Congress has emboldened this perception.
Members such as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican from California, seem aligned with Afghanistan's opposition figures who want to radically revamp the state and decentralize it. Mr. Rohrabacher's disdain for Karzai is well known, and US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton personally asked him not to join a congressional delegation in Kabul in April. He did not travel to Kabul, but other members did, and met with opposition figures.
The Obama administration itself does not support decentralization. Such an Afghanistan could involve, among other things, granting the provincial councils legislative power and having provincial governors elected rather than appointed by the president. The elected governors would have considerable power, including the ability to levy their own taxes and make all key provincial appointments.
This may work in America, but Afghanistan is not America.
Giving provincial governors the authority to hire and fire civil servants, and levy their own taxes with no input or control from Kabul risks creating and supporting local “strongmen” and parallel power structures that could be potentially destabilizing.
Such an arrangement also risks turning up the heat on already simmering ethnic tensions. It could create a Pashtun-dominated “Pashtunistan” separated from a confederation of provinces dominated by ethnic Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras.
Such a strategy of soft partition would open the door for ethnic cleansing. A cursory look at history, including that of India, Bosnia, Palestine, and Cyprus, suggests that the partition of mixed political entities has almost always been accompanied or preceded by ethnic cleansing and/or colossal ethnic violence.
US support in Afghanistan over the past decade has been invaluable and American officials have the right to criticize the Afghan government, but any move toward decentralization or support for one faction over another amounts to meddling in Afghanistan’s domestic affairs and must be avoided.
What the Obama administration and Congress can and must do is to begin pivoting from an emphasis on security to one that builds Afghanistan’s political and governing capabilities.
Rather than cozying up to insatiable warlords, former jihadi leaders, and other insalubrious characters that the US has supported in the past, America must do all it can to assist the development of moderate leaders in each of the factions – without “taking sides.”
RELATED: 6 signs of hope in Pakistan
Through education and leadership training of young Afghans, as well as foreign exposure, especially in the United States, America must nurture the next generation of dynamic young leaders. Afghanistan and the US have a valuable opportunity to support technocrats, visionary leaders, and capable civil servants who will lead the country into a positive future.
The 2014 election is of crucial significance. Real and tangible steps must be taken toward a smooth and responsible transition of power. Time is running out.
Javid Ahmad, a native of Kabul, is program coordinator with the Asia Program of the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Washington, D.C. The views reflected here are his own.
Sign up for our free weekly Commentary newsletter (every Thursday). You can also add Opinion and Commentary to your free daily Monitor newsletter.

Obama’s visit to Kabul opens challenging period for U.S.-Afghan relations
By Kevin Sieff, May 2 The Washington Post
KABUL — With the signing of the “strategic partnership agreement” Tuesday during a surprise visit by President Obama, the United States entered perhaps the most complicated phase of its decade-long war in Afghanistan — a chapter that will include both the ongoing withdrawal of U.S. troops and a more precise articulation of the United States’ long-term presence here.
The accord signed by Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai pledges American financial and military support beyond 2014, when the U.S. combat mission will formally conclude. But that broad outline must now be filled in with details of the U.S. commitment — troop levels, counterterrorism operations and economic assistance — informed by strategic concerns on the ground and the political calculus in war-weary Washington.
U.S. and Afghan officials have given themselves one year to craft a status-of-forces agreement that will answer lingering questions about the nature of the long-term military partnership. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker suggested Wednesday that the agreement signed in Iraq could be seen as a guideline. But Afghan leaders are far more eager than were Iraqis to maintain a strong American presence in their country after the war’s conclusion, raising concerns about both resources and willingness during the waning days of the United States’ longest war.
U.S. officials have said that they will not keep long-term bases in Afghanistan and that the country will not be used as a staging ground for attacks on Pakistan. But Crocker said Wednesday that “if we or Afghanistan are threatened or attacked by countries outside of Afghanistan, we have the right of self-defense.”
Despite the unknowns ahead, Afghan and U.S. officials on Wednesday celebrated the signing of the agreement, calling it a historic bilateral commitment. “It is a new beginning in the U.S.-Afghan relationship,” said Shaida Abdali, the deputy national security adviser.
For his part, Karzai was quick to remind top Afghan leaders that the autonomy written into the partnership agreement and the memorandums that preceded it will permit Afghans to be more discerning when it comes to following U.S. directives.
“If you have any doubt about an American intelligence report, do not conduct any operation based on it,” he told officials Wednesday at the Interior Ministry.
The comment served as a reminder that Karzai’s vision of a sovereign Afghanistan could well include assertions of independence that challenge NATO’s military strategy. After signing a memorandum last month, his government assumed control over controversial night operations, long considered a central part of NATO’s war effort. In September, the Afghans will take over the sole U.S. military prison here, including the country’s highest-profile detainees.
Those handovers are symbols of progress when seen in the context of bolstering Afghan authority and the power of the country’s institutions, U.S. officials say. But they also mark the first time in the war that Afghans will be able to halt potentially valuable military operations and release detainees at will. U.S. officials have expressed concern about both prospects, but they say such challenges are inherent in the transition process.
The biggest threat to the war effort and to U.S.-Afghan relations, however, remains the level of violence, which has surged in recent weeks, as it typically does in the spring. On Wednesday morning, just hours after Obama left Kabul, attackers stormed a fortified compound on the edge of the capital where hundreds of Western contractors and aid workers live, killing seven civilians and wounding more than a dozen, according to Afghan security officials. The Taliban quickly asserted responsibility for the attack.
“As soon as our mujaheddin fighters heard about Obama’s trip, they organized the attack, and this was the nearest target for them. This is a clear message to Obama not to think about permanent bases in Afghanistan,” said Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman.
In another statement, the Taliban asserted that the strategic partnership “gave legitimacy to the occupation of Afghanistan and will lead to further insecurity and political instability.”
The attackers sped toward the compound and detonated a car bomb, allowing three other assailants disguised in burqas and armed with rifles and hand grenades to breach the compound’s perimeter, said Gen. Abdul Zahir, head of the Kabul police criminal investigation division.
Afghan security forces killed the last attacker several hours into the standoff. The assault occurred just across the street from a school; one child was killed, and several were wounded.
“This is another desperate attack by the Taliban, but again, another noteworthy performance by Afghan Security Forces for taking the lead in putting down another desperate attack by insurgents,” said German Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, a spokesman for NATO forces.

Concerns over child detention conditions in Kandahar
KABUL, 3 May 2012 (IRIN) - A government plan to relocate an all-boys juvenile rehabilitation centre (JRC) in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan, from the city centre to a site near Sarposa prison, where top Taliban leaders are held, could expose the children to significant risk, according to observers.
The Kandahar JRC in its current site holds 20 to 55 boys at a time, some as young as seven, in cramped and insanitary conditions. According to the Child Rights Consortium (CRC), a program managed by Terre des Hommes in conjunction with Afghan NGOs, the centre "gathers a large number of youths who should not be in custody: the offence they committed is often trifling, or the legal age of detention is not respected". It also offers no educational, vocational or recreational activities.
"The director explained that they own sewing machines for vocational training, but the last tailoring teacher moved to another position in the prison for financial reasons and was not replaced. And although the director assured the visitors that books are at least available, the children categorically contradicted this," the Consortium said following a visit to the centre in August 2011.
Other sources said the centre lacks adequate bed space and food, and there have been complaints of pilfering of some of the donations it receives. “The winter aid donations made to the centre, such as rice cookers and tables, cannot be found anywhere,” said one aid worker who makes frequent visits to the centre.
Drug use, sexual abuse and torture are reportedly ongoing problems, with guards, who are government employees, accused of providing drugs in exchange for sexual favors. Recently a boy was shot by one of the guards who was said to have had problems with the juvenile.
Initially, the justice ministry - then in charge of detention facilities - had decided to relocate the centre to a space inside the Sarposa maximum security prison. The move was cancelled when Afghan President Hamid Karzai in January transferred responsibility for prisons from justice to the interior ministry.
But the proposed new site is only marginally better: a building close to Sarposa offered by the US-funded Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar. Locating a JRC anywhere close to the maximum security prison, observers said, was totally inappropriate.
“We naturally have a concern about security, about transferring the kids to a location where there would be greater risk, and about the facilities in general and whether the facilities themselves are appreciably better or have greater capacity so there is no overcrowding,” said James Rodehaver, spokesman for the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA). He also expressed concern over the sustainability of long-term funding for the proposed new centre.
Taliban risk
Sarposa prison was attacked in 2008 and again in April 2011, resulting in the escape of hundreds of Taliban commanders. The first attack was preceded by inmates stitching their mouths shut in a protest against what they claimed was their unlawful detention and unfair trials.
“Behind Sarposa, in Police District 8, is a small town named Kargonic,” said an Afghan journalist who preferred anonymity. “Kargonic is connected to Pirpaymal village in Arghandab District where the Taliban are very active. Because Kargonic borders this area insurgents sometimes plan and carry out attacks here.”
Government officials in Kandahar said the city administration was applying pressure on all parties to accept the new facility due to funding constraints. “The land has already been submitted for judicial review,” said Zelmai Ayoubi, spokesman for the governor of Kandahar. “It is at the provincial level. We have the land but are looking for donors to help with construction.”
Hundreds held
Hundreds of children are held in JRCs across Afghanistan. As at May 2011, almost 800 (including approximately 100 girls), aged 12 to 18 were being held in 31 centres, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. But 29 were located in rented properties that had not been designed to house juveniles and lacked rehabilitation programmes or recreational facilities.
"In Juvenile Rehabilitation Centres children’s basic needs are not met," said the NGO War Child. "Many children are not provided with a medical check-up before being placed in detention and those who become sick struggle to access to medical attention. The food is not nutritionally adequate, there’s nowhere to play and no toys or equipment to play with. Children also struggle to get an education as many facilities lack books, pens and writing paper."
Yet, according to the CRC, the juvenile justice system in Afghanistan has evolved over the last decade.
"The legal framework has been enriched with some of the most important international standards, such as the principle of detention as last resort (Art. 40 of the United Nations Child Rights Convention) and the principles guaranteeing a fair trial and a due process of law," it said. The 2005 Afghan Juvenile Code, for example, raised the age of criminal responsibility from 7 to 12 years old and defined alternatives to detention such as performing social services, conditional suspension of punishment or home confinement, the rights group noted.
"Until recently, these alternatives to detention have hardly been used by judges and prosecutors; the predominant trend has been to systematically send children to JRCs regardless of the severity of the offence," said CRC. "A 14 year-old child who committed a theft to survive can be detained with a 17-year-old murderer. This exposition to the justice process can have a very negative impact on juveniles."

Bombs Targeting Anti-Taliban Leaders Kill 5 in NW Pakistan
VOA News May 3, 2012
Officials in northwestern Pakistan say two bomb blast targeting anti-Taliban tribal leaders have killed at least five people.
The attacks happened minutes apart Thursday in Chamarkand, a town in the country's tribal region near the Afghan border.
Officials said the second blast came after security forces responded to the first explosion.
No group immediately claimed responsibility, but the Pakistani Taliban has carried out similar attacks.

Army procurement switch puts boot into Afghan dream
By Rob Taylor | Reuters
KABUL (Reuters) - Gazing glumly over millions of dollars worth of machinery which used to churn out thousands of police and army boots each day but now sits wreathed in plastic sheeting, Farhad Saffi fears he is seeing the death of an Afghan dream.
Saffi's Milli Boot Factory, in Kabul's sprawling industrial hinterland, was a model for Afghanistan, showcasing local manufacturing while giving jobs to hundreds of people who may otherwise have picked up insurgent guns.
But a U.S. decision to hand procurement to the Afghan government has left Saffi with something of a developed world problem - local officials opted for cheaper boots made in China and Pakistan, killing off Milli's contracts after a year.
"The U.S. government told me when I started I would have contracts for five years, until at least 2014," he told Reuters. "The Afghan government gave me only three months notice of cancellation and now I have $30 million worth of raw material I can't use."
When it opened, inside huge white sheds that once held PVC piping machinery but is now home to high-tech German injection molding and boot-making equipment, Afghan and U.S. generals were keen to be photographed alongside a local success story.
U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Kathleen Dussault toured in 2010 to present Saffi, just 23, with a quality certificate for the plant to supply fledgling Afghan National Security Forces with top-quality boots under contracts worth up to $40 million a year.
Saffi sold his leather boots, which underwent a rigorous quality testing process in the United States, for $62 a pair, while Chinese-made boots with imitation leather cost the Afghan government $22 in a contract for up to 700,000 pairs a year.
"The Afghan government is just looking for the lowest price," he said, surveying a room piled high with rolls of leather and raw material bought from Taiwan.
"They asked me to sell for $15 a pair, but the leather alone cost me $40. The Chinese boots use fake leather and quickly fall apart, but they are cheap."
From 2002 until the end of 2011, $85.5 billion was spent on reconstruction in Afghanistan, according to U.S. government figures, while international aid worth $57 billion has flooded into the country.
NATO-led forces, who have mostly handled purchasing for the Afghan security forces in the decade-long war, have since 2010 operated under "Afghan First" rules requiring them to buy where possible from local companies, boosting the economy and employment while underpinning anti-insurgent strategies.
Contracts for Afghan businesses included 100 percent of Afghan uniforms and boots, textiles, furniture, tents, software and transformers, according to NATO data.
Those contracts spawned 15,000 jobs, while making savings on imports for combat-related spending worth $650 million - still a fraction of the estimated $200 million spent on the war a day.
THE $10-A-DAY TALIB
The Afghan First Policy backs anti-insurgency efforts by ensuring that people employed locally with better jobs and incomes aren't tempted to join the estimated 25,000 Afghan Taliban fighters in the country, often called the '$10-a-day Talib', referring to the payment offered to would-be fighters.
Some of the 700 workers laid off from Saffi's factory are now thinking of doing just that, seeing no other future as Western nations and NGOs look to leave the country with the withdrawal of most NATO combat troops in 2014.
"The factory must be reopened. If it doesn't we will have to join the Taliban for a job. What else can we do? We have families to feed," said Ares Khan, 23, as he packed some of the last boots Milli will produce without a government change of heart.
Workers at the factory earned between $400 and $900 a month, well over the average wage in a country where up to a third of the 30 million population live under the poverty line.
But many businessmen and workers fear security will evaporate with the Western exodus, taking job opportunities and investment dollars with them to safer havens elsewhere, as Afghanistan's moneyed elite have done for decades.
Khan's friend, Khair Mohammad, who came to Kabul from Ghazni province where NATO forces are engaged now in one of the last large offensives of the war, also sees no future outside the insurgency if the Afghan government closes off jobs.
"There are sixteen people in my family and there is no bread winner except me. When I go back to Ghazni I will have to join the Taliban," Mohammad said.
More than $12 billion a year spent on the war has driven up prices in Afghanistan, and wages for an internationalized few. Mohammad said his living costs were already high.
AFGHAN ABILITY
U.S. military officials say the decision to hand a large slice of procurement to the Afghans was made in March, with responsibility handed over to the Defence and Interior Ministries.
"The decision was part of the transition process to Afghan security and control," said U.S. Navy Lieutenant Aaron Kakiel, a logistics officer for the 130,000-strong NATO-led coalition in the country.
Afghan companies, Kakiel said, had supplied everything from boots to uniforms and sleeping bags, construction and even IT services for the country's security forces, which will eventually number around 352,000.
Milli is not the only company to fall foul of the switch to local procurement, with several uniform and equipment suppliers either nervously eyeing soon-to-expire contracts, or having already lost orders to cross-border competitors.
A rival company executive, who asked not to be named because his firm fears retribution from Afghan military buyers, said, like Milli, he had invested millions of dollars into his business, but his supply contracts were now in limbo.
"The term of our contracts in some fields has ended. It's not clear if the government will contract with us again, or with some other companies in other countries," the executive said.
"My company has imported material from the U.S. for products which get manufactured in Kabul and that will be useless if we don't get contracts back. We will have to sack people."
Lieutenant-General Abdul Basir Asafzari, who heads logistics and procurement in the Ministry of Defence, said only 30 percent of supply currently was coming from Afghan companies, and President Hamid Karzai had also ordered the military to choose local firms where possible.
The reason Milli had contracts cancelled was because it was importing low-quality boots from China and other countries and relabeling them, he said.
"Milli boot company did not fulfill its commitments. There were some complaints from soldiers about the quality," Asafzari said.
But Mohammad Akbar Ahmadzai, from the NGO Building Markets, which helps build jobs and investment in developing countries by supporting entrepreneurs, said Milli's boots had been genuine and met U.S.-based quality tests.
Other business experts, who would only comment anonymously, said Milli and others may have fallen foul of Afghanistan's labyrinth of bribe and patronage payments, with better-connected competitors maneuvering to kill them off.
NATO's Kakiel said Milli and others may also have misunderstood complex contract provisions which stipulated only one year of guaranteed sales.
In 2011, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan saw U.S. agencies contract out over $4 billion, out of a total of $17.3 billion, with Afghan companies.
More than 90 percent of that was spent on products bought from Afghan sellers (49 percent), construction (28 percent), support services (11 percent) and transportation (6 percent).
But an audit by the U.S. government's Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, released in January, said the Afghan First Initiative (AFI) had been marred by inadequate contract solicitation and vetting, while data on claimed employment benefits had been limited.
BUSINESS CONFIDENCE
Saffi, whose family fled under Taliban rule and returned in 2002 to find everything destroyed, said his experience had shaken his faith in both the U.S. government and the future promised by Karzai.
"We tried to do a good job here in this factory, but right now this has happened," he said. "The only judgment we can make is that my company and the country are going the same way."
Most people in Kabul's business world, he said, were nervous about the unpredictable investment climate and deteriorating security, a sentiment reinforced by an audacious Taliban attack on the city centre and nearby provinces in mid-April.
Saffi said he now had to employ 30 personal bodyguards just to ensure his children can attend school, without insurgent harm or kidnap, while police snipers were based on the roof above his home.
"When my company is closing and also going down, the same way you can think of the country. I am president of my company and Karzai is president of the country," he said.
"I am managing my company, and now my workers are leaving. The same will be happening to the country. The president must manage his country."
(Reporting by Rob Taylor; Editing by Nick Macfie)

Progress in Afghanistan? Book isn’t closed
By Al Kamen, Thursday, May 3, 7:17 AM The Washington Post
President Obama’s trip to Afghanistan on Tuesday to sign a partnership agreement with President Hamid Karzai got us to wondering how much progress has been made in the effort to train Afghanistan’s security forces.
So we turned to the Defense Department’s twice-yearly report — just out last Friday — titled “Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan.” It assesses the plan for improving the capacities of the Afghan national security folks.
The report, which covers matters including the rule of law, corruption, economic growth, road conditions, and overall military and security issues, was itself something of a mixed bag, our colleague Greg Jaffe wrote Tuesday.
Things are improving, attacks are down and the Taliban ain’t what it used to be, we’re told, but it’s still formidable and operates “with impunity” out of Pakistan.
There’s a nice review of what other players in the region are up to in that country, including a summary of an impressively heavy Indian aid footprint and strategic partnership agreement with Kabul — something that doubtless makes the Pakistanis immensely happy.
And while much of the report is boilerplate update from previous ones, we still like all the neat color charts and maps and diagrams, such as one green-and-orange octagon on Page 69 that shows the process for vetting recruits to guard against Taliban infiltration of the Afghan army.
Budget hawks will also enjoy the little sticker on the report that says that it cost the Pentagon “approximately” $207,000 to prepare the study.
The sticker is there — and on most congressionally mandated reports the Pentagon does — because former secretary Bob Gates in 2010 got tired of wasting huge amounts of time and effort on the thousands of duplicative and unneeded reports done each year that hardly anyone on the Hill actually reads.
So the report, which for the first time features an Afghan soldier — not an American — on the cover, cost “approximately” $1,605 a page.
Good thing it wasn’t “War and Peace.”
Let the feathers fly
When Founding Father Gouverneur Morris wrote the preamble to the Constitution, specifically the phrase to “insure domestic Tranquility,” he probably wasn’t thinking of Tom and Christie Vilsack.
But there may be a serious political split brewing in the home of Iowa’s former governor (now Agriculture Secretary Tom) and former first lady (now congressional candidate Christie). The issue: the agency’s plan to privatize the country’s poultry-inspection program.
Tom Vilsack reportedly claimed that budget cuts required replacing 800 food-safety inspectors with company employees, and USDA officials say the move won’t have adverse health effects on consumer of the fowl. (Seriously.)
But Christie Vilsack, who’s running against Rep. Steve King (R), saw demonstrators from the advocacy group Food & Water Watch and the American Federation of Government Employees in front of her office in Ames, Iowa.
She issued a statement in response saying that “we should not privatize jobs” and that she was concerned about “allowing companies to inspect themselves.” But she didn’t say, for now, whether she specifically opposed the rule. (And she didn’t sink to the fox-and-henhouse cliche.)
“I won’t, now that I’ve made that statement, I will not ever talk to my husband about it again,” she told the Des Moines Register. “Or, I should say, he will not talk to me,” she said. “He made it clear that we will not be talking about this again. But he certainly educated me on the department’s position.”
Not quite the War of the Roses, but it’s not over yet.
Meanwhile, substantial national controversy over the rule — even outside the Vilsack residence — has caused the department to extend the public comment period to May 26.
Brains! Brains!
Night of the Living Dead meets the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Are you an out-of-shape bureaucrat? Short of breath? Feel like an endangered species?
Then hustle on over to Arlington Square to join some employees from that Interior Department agency and learn how you can live forever — as the undead.
Yes, you’ll get in shape (or hurt yourself very badly in the process) as you learn “how to dance like a zombie, dress like a zombie and do the Thriller dance” a la Michael Jackson, says an e-mail we received the other day.
You missed the first class on Wednesday, but the plan is to hold them every Wednesday from 4:15 to 5 p.m. in Room 530 of the agency’s offices in Arlington — “subject to getting bumped by groups with legitimate need” to use that room. (Unclear how many of those there will be.)
The e-mail notes that “surprisingly, this is not considered ‘work,’ therefore you will need to either take annual leave or schedule your time accordingly.”
Costumes and makeup not provided, best we can tell.

What did Obama's Afghanistan speech really mean?
CNN By Ashley Fantz May 2, 2012
By midmorning Wednesday, Air Force One touched down at Andrews Air Force Base. President Barack Obama had returned from a surprise trip to Afghanistan that lasted a day but was meant to mark a transition to the end of the more than decadelong war.
There has been much debate about what the speech signifies and what it means for the long-term future of Afghanistan and America's involvement there. The agreement between the United States and Afghanistan that Obama touted, the strategic partnership agreement, is short on specifics and Obama's speech did not lay out any new timetable for the war.
While some observers say it's foolish to think the United States will actually leave the country, others say Obama's speech, both its symbolic occurrence and its contents, are signs of tremendous progress. At a minimum, a milestone has been reached despite tense relations. But what it means in practical terms for Americans is unclear, because after most troops leave in 2014, what remains has yet to be negotiated.
When Obama spoke of "a future in which war ends and a new chapter begins," what did that mean specifically?
Coming home
There are approximately 88,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Last year, the United States reduced the troop count in Afghanistan by 10,000, and an additional 23,000 troops will return home by the end of the summer. Obama said the rest will be removed after this summer at a "steady pace" through 2014.
But there is likely a battle on the horizon over how many soldiers should remain. In late March, Gen. John Allen, the top commander for U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, publicly called for keeping more troops in the nation into 2013. Allen said he would prefer to maintain post-surge troop levels. Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain has also been critical of the idea of reducing troop levels. McCain has said he's worried the recent scandals involving U.S. troops in Afghanistan -- the Quran burnings, the Kandahar massacre, photographs of soldiers holding body parts -- have left Afghanistan far too shaky a place to pull back from now.
Can the Afghans take charge?
In Obama's speech, he said the United States is training Afghan security forces, and that their numbers will top out at 352,000 this year. That force level will be sustained for three years, he said, and then be reduced. Does that make good security sense in the long run? Afghan forces need a lot more training, said Marine Maj. Gen. John A. Toolan, who spoke to CNN in late April after returning from commanding NATO forces in southern Afghanistan for a year.
"As the conventional forces leave, special operations forces will continue to be required because their (Afghan military) special operations capabilities are going to take a little bit more time to nurture and mature," he said.
Obama said Tuesday: "We'll work with the Afghans to determine what support they need to accomplish two narrow security missions beyond 2014, counterterrorism and continued training."
Toolan said the Afghan military's human intelligence capability is good. But, he added, they still need intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets only the U.S. military has. "The Afghans know we have that and they want to have access, so I think we are going to have to provide that for a while past 2014," he said.
Negotiating with the enemy?
It may have come as a surprise to some Americans listening to the president's speech when he said, "We're pursuing a negotiated peace" with the Taliban.
What happened to smoking them out of their holes? Isn't the Taliban the enemy? Is this how to defeat them, by talking to them?
Al Qaeda and the Taliban are two different entities, though they are related.
The Taliban, a Sunni Islamist group, ruled Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001 until they were ousted by the 2001 American-led invasion. But starting around 2004, the movement regained force and mounted an insurgency against the Afghan government and Western forces.
Al Qaeda is a terrorist group created by Osama bin Laden. The Taliban has provided shelter and support to al Qaeda.
It's the norm for the Taliban to speak through official spokespersons. They even use Twitter.
But the Obama administration has said it believes Taliban members, from soldiers to even some leaders, are interested in pursuing reconciliation. The move has been supported by numerous leaders, including military officials, and a U.S. official said the talks are ongoing.
CNN reported months ago that a special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan had been meeting secretly with Taliban negotiators for more than a year. There was talk of releasing five Taliban prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay to be transferred to Qatar as a show of good faith in negotiations. The Taliban had established an office in Qatar for the talks, but suspended that office in March. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in January that the United States has "realistic" notions of "what is possible" and that Afghan President Hamid Karzai should "bear the ultimate responsibility and consequences of" the talks.
"It's obviously viscerally not what the average American may want to hear from their president about a war we've been fighting for more than 10 years," American University professor and terrorism expert Stephen Tankel said Wednesday.
"But the fact is that that is how these types of conflicts end -- through some kind of settlement, some agreement and talking. But no one can know whether this will work."
If it doesn't, could it mean more violence involving American troops? Tankel said yes. Obama strongly suggested that as well, but in more vague language. "Those who refuse to walk it will face strong Afghan security forces, backed by the United States and our allies," Obama said.
The fight beyond Afghanistan
Obama spoke of "delivering justice" to al Qaeda. But is that the same thing as defeating it? Over the years, al Qaeda has branched out or grown stronger in various countries: Somalia, Yemen and Iraq, to name a few.
"I think (Obama) is only saying that the foothold al Qaeda had in Afghanistan is not present or is substantially weakened," said Tankel.
It has been weakened in large part because U.S. drone strikes on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border targeting terrorists have been successful, he said. Yet the drone strikes are controversial and some are calling for their end. Critics say drone strikes are not as precise as military leaders say, and that they endanger civilians.
CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen, who got exclusive access to a trove of documents about bin Laden, believes the terror group is in terrible shape.
"Their record of failure speaks for itself: No success in the West since the London attacks of 2005, no attacks in the United States since 9/11 (2001), almost the entire top leadership dead or captured," said Bergen.
But al Qaeda has been franchising around the world.
In a relationship with Pakistan, it's complicated
"I have made it clear to its neighbor -- Pakistan -- that it can and should be an equal partner in this process in a way that respects Pakistan's sovereignty, interests and democratic institutions," Obama said Tuesday.
He stressed that in the U.S. pursuit of a "durable peace," the United States "has no designs beyond an end to al Qaeda safe havens and respect for Afghan sovereignty."
For the past year, some of the United States' top military and political leaders have said Pakistan is not to be trusted. It's one of the reasons the country was not informed about the 2011 U.S. raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad. This week CNN reported that a new semi-annual report released by the Pentagon said the "Taliban-led insurgency and its al Qaeda affiliates still operate with impunity from sanctuaries in Pakistan."
Pakistan and the United States have tense relations. Lately, Pakistan has demanded the United States stop its drone attacks against al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan. The program has been dubbed a success by the United States. What's more, Pakistan is refusing to open roads that are supply lines through Pakistan to troops in Afghanistan. That action is in response to other grievances. Pakistan also wants $3 billion for helping the American effort to fight terrorists in tribal areas.
Christine Fair, with the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University, specializes in Pakistan.
"The things that were said (in the speech) ... about Pakistan seem discordant with what's happening in Pakistan and about the (U.S.) relationship with Pakistan," she said.
The phrasing Obama used was likely a way to entice the Pakistanis to come to a Chicago NATO summit in May. They are threatening right now to protest by not attending, she said.
"The Pakistanis listen to our media, and they are going to listen to what Obama said and see that it doesn't reflect how they are being treated," she said. "We (the United States) don't treat them as equals. We are increasingly treating them as combatants. Their proxies are killing our troops and we want to kill those people."
She said there is a lot of political turbulence ahead in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States. New leaders in the mix could change everything.
Pakistan will have a national election in October.
Afghanistan elections are slated for 2014.
The Unites States' presidential election is in November.
Was Tuesday's speech about winning points in an election year?
It was the president speaking about six months away from voting day. He was speaking about one of the most controversial wars in history from the nation in which the war has been waged. It was the one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden, which he authorized.
The short answer is: Yes.
But that doesn't mean it was about political pandering either, experts said.
The White House said the speech was not meant as a showboating opportunity.
"The negotiations were completed in recent weeks, and the documents of the strategic partnership agreement went to the presidents for their review," a senior administration official said just before Obama's speech. Karzai invited Obama to sign the agreement on Afghan soil, the official said.
Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, an influential Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wasn't buying that. He said it seemed clear to him that Obama's trip was meant to garner more votes in November.
"We've seen recently that President Obama has visited college campuses in an attempt to win back the support of that age group since he has lost it over the last three years," Inhofe said in a written statement Wednesday. "Similarly, this trip to Afghanistan is an attempt to shore up his national security credentials, because he has spent the past three years gutting our military."
Longtime GOP Rep. Steve King, a Republican from Iowa, tweeted the same sentiment.
"The White House tells us it is a coincidence that POTUS is in Afghanistan on anniversary of OBL death" his post read. He followed that with a tweet referencing Billy "White Shoes" Johnson, one of the first professional football players known for perfecting the art of the end-zone dance.
McCain said he didn't think the trip was about winning political brownie points. "I can't accuse the president of that," McCain said.
"A lot of people both here in Congress, including Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. (Joseph) Lieberman, worked on the strategic partnership agreement, and it's important that we send the message to friends and enemies alike that the United States has a long-term commitment to Afghanistan."
Mitt Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, held his fire.
"I am pleased that President Obama has returned to Afghanistan," Romney said in a written statement released by his campaign on Tuesday. "Our troops and the American people deserve to hear from our president about what is at stake in this war."
CNN's Jamie Crawford contributed to this report.

Afghanistan Cannot Sacrifice Itself For Foreign Interests: MPs
TOLOnews.com Wednesday, 02 May 2012
Afghanistan's parliamentarians broadly welcomed the signing of the Afghan-US strategic agreement Wednesday, but warned that Afghanistan would not sacrifice itself for the interests of other countries.
Members of Parliament stressed that Afghanistan is an independent country and would sign such long-term agreements with any country as long as its sovereignty and national interests were not violated.
"As other countries cannot sacrifice their interests for our country, we also can't do so," Herat's MP Ahmad Behzad said.
Kabul MP Shukria Barekzai said that the agreement, if implemented properly, would help Afghanistan to stabilise.
"I believe that if it's governed wisely and in accordance with the national interests of Afghanistan, it will without any doubt help keep Afghanistan stable," she said.
The MPs also called on the Afghan government to send the agreement to the Parliament for review as soon as possible.
"The government should send the agreement to the parliament in order for it to be reviewed," Balkh MP Sayed Alemi Balkhi said.
The Afghan-US strategic agreement is regarded as a crucial platform for the future Afghanistan after 2014 when Nato withdraws from its combat mission.
Afghanistan has signed similar agreements with France, Britain Italy and India.
It is close to signing long-term pacts with Germany and Australia.

Obama must support Afghanistan's women against the Taliban
By Michelle Bernard The Washington Post
President Obama was elected to fix the economy. But as of the first anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden, he looks like he is running for reelection as the foreign policy president.
Running as the foreign policy president requires him to be muscular not only in protecting the interests of Americans at home and abroad, but in promoting the human rights of the women of Afghanistan. As I said in a post on April 9, according to a recent Human Rights Watch report, women in Afghanistan are being arrested for “moral crimes,” including such treasons as running away from abusive husbands and fleeing child marriages. Some women were even kidnapped, accused of having sex with their kidnappers, and consequently thrown in jail. Far too often in matters of U.S. foreign policy, the rights of women always seem to be one of the last priorities addressed by policymakers. Afghanistan’s women cannot afford to be our nation’s last priority.
A year ago, Navy SEALS killed Osama bin Laden. The president deserves credit for approving a mission which looked uncertain at best. His political preening is well-deserved and President George W. Bush would have done the same. And Obama effectively rebutted Hillary Clinton’s infamous 2008 political spot asking whether he could be trusted to answer the 3 a.m. phone call.
But while justice was achieved for those murdered on 9/11, bin Laden’s death did not eliminate security challenges facing America. Al-Qaeda was in eclipse even before last May. A concerted effort — begun by Bush and continued by Obama — to eliminate the organization’s leaders and dry up its funding had left it much weakened. Unfortunately, however, the terrorist challenge morphed with the rise of independent national groups only loosely modeled after or aligned with al-Qaeda. Such organizations created mayhem in Iraq, struck in Madrid and London, and now are active in Pakistan and Yemen. So far they have not killed in America, but eternal vigilance is required. Americans are entitled to a victory dance after bin Laden’s death, but cannot let down their guard against foreign threats.
Moreover, the U.S. still faces its own home-grown terrorists. Five men were just arrested for allegedly planning to blow up an Ohio bridge. They are not Muslims and apparently had their own agenda.
Even more serious is the Afghanistan war. Obama made a surprise visit to that country on the anniversary of bin Laden’s death and spoke to Americans. “This time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end,” he proclaimed.
It is in Afghanistan where Obama first demonstrated that his foreign policy would be as muscular as that of his predecessor. Following Bush’s “surge” in Iraq, Obama twice increased the number of troops in Afghanistan. He also maintained the Bush withdrawal timetable in Iraq, began his own war in Libya, sent Special Forces into Uganda, intensified drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen and, of course, approved the mission to kill bin Laden.
However, getting out of Afghanistan is not likely to be as easy as the president hopes. He intends to withdraw U.S. forces by the end of next year. While in Afghanistan he signed an agreement with the government of Hamid Karzai for future security cooperation. The accord, explained the president, “defines a new kind of relationship between our countries — a future in which Afghans are responsible for the security of their nation.”
It is a worthwhile objective, but despite the growth of Afghan security forces, Kabul doesn’t look anywhere near ready to handle its own security. The Afghan people have little confidence in a government which they see as corrupt and incompetent. Most Afghans reject the Taliban’s brutal return to past oppression (as they should). However, that doesn’t mean they will die fighting to keep Karzai and his allies in power.
Thus, if the United States withdraws too quickly, it risks losing all of the hard-won gains of a decade of war. Bush aimed for more than just defeating al-Qaeda. His “Freedom Agenda” sought to spread liberty to other nations, most obviously Iraq and Afghanistan.
Neutralizing the Taliban is a moral issue, since all Afghans would suffer if Islamic fundamentalists again took power. At particular risk are women and girls, who suffered extra hardship and humiliation under the Taliban. Even now, they have not achieved genuine equality, but increasing numbers of girls are being educated and more women are getting active in business and government. Those gains would be wiped out by the Taliban’s return. Even a coalition with the Taliban would put equal treatment of women at risk.
While whoever is elected president in November cannot continue an unpopular war only to uplift Afghan women, the transition should be designed to maximize the likelihood of preserving human rights for all where so many Americans, allied soldiers and Afghans already have died fighting undemocratic forces. Afghanistan will be a failed state if it fails to recognize the human rights of its women and children.
Obama has an impressive foreign policy story to tell and he told it with characteristic eloquence in his speech from Afghanistan. Almost four years after he took the oath of office, Americans may be safer today because bin Laden is dead. The United States must support and advance the human rights of Afghan women with the determination our nation exhibited in killing bin Laden and fighting al-Qaeda. Today, our democracy, democracies around the world and the women of Afghanistan need the president and the United States to continue to be muscular in how we deal with the Taliban.
Michelle D. Bernard is president and CEO of the Bernard Center for Women, Politics & Public Policy. Follow her on Twitter @michellebernard.

Hundreds of Pakistanis Rally on bin Laden Death Anniversary
VOA News May 2, 2012
Hundreds of Pakistanis took to the streets Wednesday to mark the first anniversary of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden's death.
U.S. special forces killed bin Laden during a covert raid in the garrison Pakistani town of Abbottabad on May 2, 2011.
In the southwestern city of Quetta, members of the pro-Taliban Jammat-e-Ulema Party condemned bin Laden's killing - shouting slogans in support of the al-Qaida leader and burning the American flag.
In Abbottabad, school children rallied at the site of bin Laden's compound, calling for peace and an end to U.S. drone strikes on Pakistani soil.
Pakistan's government has condemned the strikes and the bin Laden raid as a violation of the country's sovereignty.
Pakistan was on high alert Wednesday, with security agencies directed to watch out for possible attacks by militants seeking revenge for bin Laden's killing.
Last week, the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad said it was restricting its employees from going to restaurants and markets in the Pakistani capital between April 27 though May 5, and recommended that American citizens in Islamabad take similar precautions. The embassy did not give a reason for the security warning, but the dates coincide with the first anniversary of the al-Qaida leader's death.
Some information for this report was provided by AP, AFP and Reuters.

Top Afghan Officials Welcome Pact with US
VOA News May 2, 2012 Kent Klein
White House - The partnership agreement signed by President Barack Obama and Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday is getting a generally positive reception from officials in Kabul. Some top Afghans are welcoming the long-term U.S. commitment to their country’s security.
In announcing the agreement at Bagram Air Base, President Obama told Americans it marked the beginning of the end of the long U.S. military commitment in Afghanistan.
“My fellow Americans, we have traveled through more than a decade under the dark cloud of war. Yet here, in the pre-dawn darkness of Afghanistan, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon,” he said.
Some members of Afghanistan’s government are praising the agreement because, they say, it shows that the United States will not abandon their country.
The Afghan parliament is expected to approve the proposal, possibly as early as next week.
Parliament member Shukria Barekzai said she supports it. “It is very early to say that the parliament may pass [it] or not. But for my point of view, as long as it is good for the country and good for the Afghan people, we would like to vote for it,” Barekzai said.
Afghanistan's former ambassador to the United States, Said Tayeb Jawad, says the plan signals America's commitment to remain engaged in his country, and that the agreement is not a threat to Afghanistan's neighbors.
“It in fact encourages the regional countries to contribute to the safety and security of Afghanistan. At the same time, if the neighboring countries have ill intentions, they will understand the United States is there to stay,” Jawad said.
The plan does not specify U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan. But it gives Washington the option of keeping troops there for a decade after 2014, to train Afghan forces or for operations against al-Qaida.
Some experts in Washington say that the war will not be winding down soon, and that U.S. special forces might need to stay in Afghanistan for years to come.
A reminder of that came shortly after Mr. Obama’s plane left Bagram Air Base. The Taliban set off a suicide car bomb at a foreigners' housing compound, and militants killed at least seven people.
But Caroline Wadhams of the Washington-based Center for American Progress, told Alhurra Television that the agreement might help advance talks with the Taliban.
"I think what it does is that this agreement, in a sense, strengthens the hand of the Afghan government in some kind of negotiation process that the U.S. hopes will occur with the insurgency. It gives the Afghan government a stronger card to play in that process," Wadhams said.
Another detail not included in the agreement is the amount of financial support the United States will give Afghanistan. Officials in Washington say that will be decided by Congress.
Former Afghan Ambassador Jawad says that after many months of negotiations, there was a desire to have an agreement in place before this month’s NATO summit in Chicago.
“But they would like to see more commitment on the U.S. part as to the financial commitment Afghanistan will be receiving. Therefore there was a push on the Afghan government to quantify the amount of assistance Afghanistan would be receiving,” Jawad said.
Still, Jawad says, it is a positive agreement that will benefit Afghanistan and the region.

Kabul Bank Shareholders Owe $250m
TOLOnews.com Wednesday, 02 May 2012
Nearly $250 million is owing to Kabul Bank as shareholders have not paid their debts, Afghanistan's central bank chief told the country's Parliament Wednesday.
Head of Afghanistan's central bank Da Afghanistan Bank Noorullah Delawari told Afghan MPs that the offending shareholders have had their properties in Dubai and Kabul "identified".
"Shir Khan Farnood, Abdul Ghafar Dawi, owner of Gulbahar Center [Gulbahar Habibi], and Taher Zaher have not yet paid their debts to Kabul Bank," he said.
Properties they own in Dubai and Kabul, valued up to $250 million, have been identified, he added.
Paktia's MP Sayed Ishaaq Gilani listed more shareholders who had debts owing.
"Those shareholders who have not paid their debts yet are Mahmoud Karzai, Hassin Fahim, Haji Taher, Behzad, Hewadwal, Haji Khalil, Kabul Oil company, Payenda Mohammad, Naseeb Food, Nesar Ahmad, Taher Limited and Pamir Online."
Some other MPs criticised the management of Kabul Bank saying that since the government took control of Kabul Bank it lacked proper management and misused resources.
One MP suggested funds had been stolen from the bank, but did not give any details.
"Since the government took control of the bank, its employees are not working properly. $20,000 have been stolen from the bank recently," Nangarhar MP Sayed Akram said.
A delegation comprised of representatives from the Ministries of finance and justice went to Dubai recently to identify the properties of Kabul Bank's shareholders.
It was revealed early April that the Afghan government plans to sell the bank and it set a two-month deadline for the full repayment of the loans illegally received.
The government seized control of what was Afghanistan's biggest commercial bank in 2010 from the owners after it lost more than $800 million of depositors' money through illegal insider loans.
Kabul Bank's share issue was point of contention between Afghan Parliament and the Ministry of Finance on the approval of 1391's fiscal budget.

Political Development Lags in Afghanistan
VOA News May 2, 2012 Gary Thomas
Washington - The strategic partnership agreement signed by the U.S. and Afghan presidents outlines a continued U.S. commitment to Afghanistan beyond the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops.
The pact calls for continued expenditures of U.S. funds to train, equip, advise, and sustain the Afghan army and police, known collectively as the Afghan National Security Forces, beyond the planned withdrawal of U.S. combat troops in 2014. It also calls for strengthening Afghan governmental institutions.
Much of the U.S. and allied effort in Afghanistan has been security-related. But there is concern among analysts that political development has not kept pace with security assistance. As a result, they say, a weak and corrupt Afghan government may be vulnerable not only to military pressure from insurgents, but political manipulation as well.
Said Tayeb Jawad, former Afghan ambassador to the United States, says the U.S. effort and expenditure toward political development has lagged far behind the buildup of security institutions.
“The transition of the security responsibilities to the Afghan security forces, the transition of the Afghan economy gradually from a contract economy into a private-led economy is taking place in a much better organized and robust way than the political transition,” Jawad said.
The Afghan government structure arose out of the 2001 Bonn Agreement, enacted after the Taliban were driven from power. It calls for a presidential system with a parliament and judiciary. Yet analysts say the government is rife with corruption and unable to enforce its writ in many parts of the country, even with Western backing.
Expressing his personal views, Professor Larry Goodson of the U.S. Army War College says although the Bonn accords put a governmental framework in place, the political development has not moved forward as hoped.
“Although we laid out a kind of timetable and process by which Afghanistan would go through a set of elections and move toward a Western-style democratic system, that just hasn't been rooted very deeply or taken shape every well in Afghanistan compared to the focus on the military and the security sector,” Goodson said.
He said the overarching focus by NATO on security development is to allow Western forces an exit strategy, regardless of the state of Afghan political institutions.
“The focus has been on ANSF development, or what I call the ‘Afghanization’ of the security process or the security forces.” Goodson said. “And if that happens to a standard that the NATO forces are willing to certify, and there is a government in place, then a withdrawal can happen, regardless of whether that government is really functional and able to govern the society in a way that is going to be meaningful.”
In the years since the Bonn accords, Afghanistan has had one chief executive: Hamid Karzai. But his term is up in 2014 - the year U.S. combat forces are due to depart - and according to the constitution, he cannot seek a third term. Analysts say no clear figure has emerged into the spotlight who could take Mr. Karzai’s place. Former senior U.S. diplomat Mike Malinowski, who has wide experience in South Asia, said this is in part because young people are not being systematically groomed for future political office.
“I think there is a disappointing lack of new people coming up, and you see this in a lot of societies,” Malinowski said. “There’s not a lack of educated Afghans. There are very competent Afghans who could function anywhere in the world and have functioned anywhere in the world. But whether they have a resonance among the people who live there and have sacrificed every day, I just don’t know.”
Jawad said what is also lacking among young Afghans is a sense of self-confidence so they can take their place in the system. “A young generation of Afghans are realizing that a lot of things aren’t going right in their country,” Jawad said. “But I still do not see a kind of strong sense of confidence of saying that this is the way to solve it. You hear more of a complaint about the international community or the Afghan government or the warlords or this and that. All of it sometimes, or part of it, is justified. But we need to see a generation that thinks, analyzes, and provides solutions.”
Development of political parties has also flagged. Malinowski said there is a historical mistrust of them because parties were deeply involved in the civil war of the early 1990s, which led to the advent of the Taliban.
“Most Afghans, when they think of parties, they think back to the PDPA (People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan) - the communist group, the Khalqi and the Parcham factions of that - or they think of the tanzims, the parties that were created in Pakistan, by Pakistan, to funnel the Afghan logistic and political resistance,” Malinowski said. “So there’s this distrust of this. Of course, the parties, people belonging to parties, trashed Kabul.”
The United States is in touch with Taliban elements to try to bring them to the negotiating table. But what do they want? Jawad, the ex-Afghan ambassador, says the Taliban might be willing to share power, but will insist on judgeships in a judicial system that is also shaky.
“They’re certainly interested in political power,” Jawad said. “Are they interested in political power-sharing or full power, that’s the question. If there is not a mechanism of monitoring and enforcing negotiation in Afghanistan, they will be happy to share power, come in, and then fight for full dominance.”
Sherard Cowper-Coles is a former British ambassador to Afghanistan and ex-Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan who has long argued for intense negotiations with the Taliban. Cowper-Coles left diplomatic service in 2010 over differences with the government on Afghan policy and wrote a book Cables from Kabul on his experiences. He says a settlement by the Afghan government both with the Taliban and Afghanistan’s neighbors is absolutely key to stabilizing political and governmental institutions.
“We’ve got a constitution which is unworkable, is out of keeping with the grain of Afghan political history and geography,” the ex-British diplomat said. “But above all, we haven’t got a settlement with the enemy, the Taliban, the insurgents. And we haven’t got a settlement among and between Afghanistan’s neighbors. So there will be no peace to keep when our soldiers stop fighting next year. And I’m afraid that that’s rather a bleak outlook.”
Afghanistan is expected to top the agenda at a NATO summit conference in Chicago later this month.

Little Succor For Afghanistan's Mentally Ill
By Farangis Najibullah, Omid Marzban May 3, 2012 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Decades of war, widespread poverty, and societal restrictions can take a toll on the mind, making Afghanistan uniquely suited as an incubator for mental illness.
But while the factors are numerous, the path to treatment is fraught with obstacles ranging from the shame felt by family members, to age-old traditions that compete with modern methods, and a deficiency of professionals and facilities equipped to deal with the situation.
Among the mental illnesses affecting Afghans most are depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder, but precise statistics are difficult to pin down.
One frequently mentioned figure estimates that 60 percent of the population is affected by some form of mental illness. Other estimates range from around the 15 percent range to as high as 98 percent.
Even one of the leading authorities in the field of mental health in Afghanistan, the World Health Organization, expresses skepticism at attempts to quantify the problem.
Ahmad Azadi, communication and advocacy officer for the WHO in Afghanistan, cites a lack of recorded data and mental-health professionals to properly diagnose patients. In an e-mail he simply says that "Afghans are in great need" when it comes to mental-health treatment.
That conclusion is difficult to dispute. With some 30 million inhabitants, Afghanistan has only a handful of mental-health treatment facilities nationwide.
In Kabul, the state's main facility has a capacity to treat just 60 patients at a time. There are specialized hospital wards in Jalalabad, in eastern Afghanistan, and Herat, in the west. In the northern city of Mazar-i Sharif a gleaming, private hospital helps fill the void.
Other than that there are no other medical facilities to treat mental patients throughout Afghanistan's 34 provinces.
Aziz Neemat, head of the government-run Society of Mental Health Specialists, says the situation is dire, especially in the country's regions, but that there are positive developments.
He singles out the private Alemi Neuro Psychiatric Hospital in Mazar-i Sharif -- the administrative center of Balkh Province -- as a particular source of pride when it comes to treating patients with mental health-problems.
Unlike the dilapidated state hospital in Kabul's crowded Alauddin area, the four-story Alemi facility is gleaming and equipped with modern equipment.
'Just A Drop In The Ocean'
Dr. Nader Alemi, the owner of the hospital, claims patients come from all over Afghanistan.
"In the past 12 months, 964 patients from different provinces have sought treatment here," Alemi says. "But it's just a drop in the ocean. We have millions of people suffering from depression in villages and cities who desperately need treatment."
Public awareness of the problem is seen as key to treating it in a country where mental illnesses are seldom recognized as a medical issue, and are often covered up by family members out of shame.
Traditional treatments, according to Dr. Alemi, involve employing mullahs to "cure" people by means of exorcisms or the reading of verses.
Sufferers often turn to holy shrines known as "ziyarats" for treatment. Prominent "ziyarats" such as Niali Saheb in Nangarhar, Shams Saheb in Ghazni province, and Shpole Baba in the eastern Mahipar town have become a popular destination for tens of thousands of people suffering from depression.
Only when patients' distress and suffering becomes unbearable for the patients and their families do they find their way to the country's few specialized facilities.
Alemi says that when it comes to proper treatment, psychological counseling "goes a long way."
He maintains that sufferers of mental illness are eager to share what they have been going through.
'Suffering In Silence'
Time and money are a hindrance, according to Alemi.
While treatment for depression, for example, usually takes many months, the majority of his patients come from remote rural areas and cannot afford extended hospital stays.
"So we have found the best possible solution under our circumstances." he says. "We hospitalize patients for a few days, during which they undergo psychological counseling, and we prescribe medications before they leave.
"We stay in touch over the phone; patients can call our doctors for any advice they need. And then they return for another check-up in two-three months."
"It's not ideal but it helps," Alemi says.
Meanwhile, in Kabul, the Society of Mental Health Specialists works to convince the government to allocate money to train experts and open mental heath facilities in all provinces.
"People are suffering in silence, it's affecting their families and entire society," says Neemat.
"If they had access to treatment, perhaps we would have less domestic violence, self-immolation and drug addictions, and even a lot less suicide bombings. You can't make a happy and healthy young man wear a suicide belt to blow himself and others up."
Written and reported by Farangis Najibullah, with additional reporting by Radio Free Afghanistan correspondent Omid Marzban

Iran Opens Chabahar Port to Afghan Traders
TOLOnews.com Wednesday, 02 May 2012
Afghanistan will be allowed to use Iran's Chabahar port for shipments and trade after the two countries signed an agreement in Kabul Wednesday.
The agreement was signed by Afghanistan's Minister of Commerce And Industries Anwar al Haq Ahady and the Iranian Ambassador to Afghanistan Abolfazl Zohrevand.
The endorsement of the pact means Afghan traders will be able to use the southeastern port - Iran's only port with direct access to the sea - for importing and exporting goods.
Officials said the Chabahat port will help Afghanistan's trade-related transit problems and is likely to boost commercial transactions.
Ahady said that, according to the agreement, the first step involves building a hub near the port for Afghan traders to have a base for trading from.
The allocation of land is around 50 hectares and he expects traders would be able to use it within a year, he said.
"Through the efforts of the Afghan and Iranian officials, Chabahar as a transit route for Afghanistan has become a reality," he added.
A panel of officials from Iran who travelled to Afghanistan for the signing of the agreement said that many countries had applied to Chabahar Port for permission to use it, and Afghanistan had succeeded.
Ambassador Zohrevand welcomed the agreement saying it would help the economic expansion of Afghanistan as it gave greater access to world markets.
"The outcome of this agreement is not only positive for Afghanistan and Iran relations, we also expect it to help the joint cooperation of Afghan and Iran traders so they can expand through cooperation to the Middle East and Asia," he said.
The agreement eases the pressure on Afghanistan to rely on trade routes through Pakistan, as relations between the two have significantly strained in recent years.
It also signals the warming relations between Iran and Afghanistan. Only last week the pair endorsed an agreement to allow for the transfer of prisoners sentenced in the other's country to serve their sentence in their native land.

www.afghanistannewscenter.com