[Afghan News] October 10, 2012

[یاسمینه]

Obama nominates new Afghan commander
Aljazeera
President Barack Obama has nominated General Joseph Dunford, the deputy Marine commander, to lead the war effort in Afghanistan and oversee plans to withdraw most of the US combat forces from the country by the end of 2014.

Dunford, if confirmed by the Senate, would replace General John Allen, who was nominated by the president on Wednesday to become NATO's supreme allied commander for Europe.

Dunford, who served in Iraq, has been assistant commandant of the Marine Corps since October 2010 and had been widely expected to take charge of US and NATO troops in Afghanistan as Allen rotated out of the post.

"If confirmed by the Senate, he will lead our forces through key milestones in our effort that will allow us to bring the war to a close responsibly as Afghanistan takes full responsibility for its security," Obama said in a statement.

Dunford would assume command of 68,000 US troops who make up the bulk of the coalition force of about 100,000.

Allen, nominated to succeed Admiral James Stavridis in a post traditionally held by a US officer, led the NATO campaign in Afghanistan from July 2011.

Both nominations by Obama are subject to US Senate confirmation.

'Served with distinction'

"For more than a year, General Allen has served with distinction as the commander of US forces and NATO's International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] in Afghanistan, seeing us through a critical period in our military efforts and in Afghanistan's transition," Obama said in a statement.

"Under General Allen's command, we have made important progress towards our core goal of defeating al-Qaeda and ensuring they can never return to a sovereign Afghanistan."

Allen commanded a coalition force from 50 different countries, giving him the experience to deal with the often sensitive and conflicting wishes of NATO's 28 member states and 22 partners.

Meanwhile, the UN defended on Wednesday its recommendation that the 15-member UN Security Council postpone a planned visit to Afghanistan this month over security concerns after some diplomats questioned the UN threat assessment.

Diplomats said the decision to postpone the trip came after UN security chief Gregory Starr recommended earlier this month that they not travel to Afghanistan in the coming weeks, citing concerns for the safety of council diplomats.

Some council diplomats privately questioned the UN recommendation as vague, but others told Reuters news agency that it would be unwise to question Starr's assessment of the risk level in Afghanistan.

UN spokesman Farhan Haq said a security assessment had been made to the council based on the best information
available.

"We stand by the recommendation, but will not comment further," he said.


Panetta promises action against Afghan insider attacks
By David Alexander
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta sought to reassure NATO allies on Wednesday effective action was being taken to stop "insider" attacks on their soldiers that have undermined trust between coalition and Afghan forces.

Panetta also told a meeting of alliance defense ministers the 11-year-old Afghan war had "reached a critical moment" after the pullout of 33,000 U.S. "surge" troops brought in two years ago to help counter a strengthening Taliban insurgency.

He said the coalition's response to attacks by Taliban insurgents disguised as Afghan policemen or soldiers and its efforts to improve its partnership with Afghan security forces would be critical to the success of the war with the Taliban.

Panetta and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told the gathering in Brussels there was no move to speed up the planned withdrawal of international forces.

"The handover to Afghan security responsibility is unfolding as planned. And as transition takes hold, you will see some of our forces redeploying or drawing down as part of the strategy we have all agreed. This is not a rush for the exit, but the logical result of transition," Rasmussen said.

At least 52 members of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force have been killed this year by Afghans wearing police or army uniforms, eroding confidence between the sides.

"Whatever motivates these attacks, the enemy intends to use them to undermine mutual trust and cohesion, driving a wedge between us and our Afghan partners," Panetta said.

"We can only deny the enemy its objective by countering these attacks with all of our strength."

He outlined steps the coalition and Afghan officials are taking to counter the attacks. They included enhanced training, better cultural awareness, continual review of partnering arrangements and expanded vetting of forces.

Panetta also announced changes in the top military ranks in Afghanistan and Europe.

General Joseph Dunford, assistant commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, has been chosen to lead U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, Panetta said.

The current head of the International Security Assistance Force, Marine Corps General John Allen, will become the head of U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, taking over from Admiral James Stavridis, Panetta said.

Both positions require U.S. Senate confirmation and the changes are expected to take place early next year. Panetta said President Barack Obama had decided to nominate the two.

The defense ministers gave military experts the go-ahead on Wednesday to start detailed planning for the NATO-led training and advisory mission that will start after NATO ends combat operations in Afghanistan at the end of 2014.

AFGHAN WAR AT "CRITICAL MOMENT"

Panetta said a decision to send 33,000 extra U.S. troops into Afghanistan nearly two years ago had made a "decisive difference," sharply reducing casualties and forcing Taliban insurgents farther away from population centers.

The United States completed the withdrawal of the so-called "surge" forces in September, leaving 68,000 U.S. troops plus their coalition partners to carry on the mission. The coalition has trained some 350,000 Afghan forces and plans to hand over full security control to Kabul by the end of 2014.

With the pullout of surge forces, "we've reached a critical moment for this alliance and for this war," Panetta said.

To build the skill and capacity of the Afghan army and police, the coalition must "ensure they have the embedded trainers and mentors needed to assist them as they take security lead".

He said the coalition faced a shortfall of 58 security assistance teams to advise the forces and urged the NATO allies to help fill the gap.

Panetta said the size and composition of the NATO force that would remain in Afghanistan after 2014 had not been decided but its presence should be "steadfast and effective".

British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond said on Tuesday evening he expected Britain would be able to make a "significant reduction" in its troop levels in Afghanistan in 2013.

Any enduring British presence after 2014 would be modest and targeted on "specific niche capabilities", he said.

(Additional reporting by Adrian Croft and Sebastian Moffett; editing by Andrew Roche)


Afghan forces take over security duties in eastern province
ASAD ABAD, Afghanistan, Oct. 10 (Xinhua) -- Afghan forces took over the security charges in parts of the eastern province of Kunar on Wednesday from the NATO-led coalition troops, a fresh development of the security transition plan that lasts till 2014 when Afghanistan is due to take over the full security duties from U.S. and NATO forces.

"Today we saw another historic moment here in Kunar as our security forces officially took full control of security in provincial capital Asad Abad and districts of Narang, Nurgul and Chawkay from NATO-led coalition forces," vice-chief to Afghan army chief of staff, Gen. Mohammad Akram, told a ceremony held in Asad Abad city.

"The government's goal to assume leading security duties across the country by the end of 2014 has been proceeding smoothly and is on track," he added.

Wednesday's security transition in Kunar, 158 km east of Afghan capital Kabul, was part of the third phase of the process that began in July last year.

The Afghan forces and NATO troops have completed transition in the first two of five tranches of provinces and districts across the country and by a couple of weeks the Afghan national security forces will take full control of areas where about 75 percent of the population lives.

A total of 50 countries are contributing 100,000-strong forces in Afghanistan with more than 68,000 of them Americans mainly stationed in the east and south, followed by 9,500 from Britain mainly based in southern Afghanistan.


Taliban leader who downs NATO helicopter killed: coalition
KABUL, Oct. 10 (Xinhua) -- A local Taliban leader, who was accused of shooting down a NATO CH-47 Chinook helicopter last year, was killed in Afghanistan's eastern province of Kunar, the NATO- led coalition forces confirmed on Wednesday.

"An Afghan and coalition force killed a Taliban leader in an operation in Kunar province, Monday. The Taliban leader, Abdullah, was accused of shooting down a CH-47 Chinook helicopter July 25, 2011 in Kunar province. During the operation, the security force positively identified Abdullah with two other militants engaging in insurgent activity in an isolated area away from civilians. The security force conducted a precision airstrike, killing Abdullah and two additional insurgents," the coalition said in a statement.

However, no death was reported in last years' crash.

Up to 10 NATO and U.S. helicopters had gone down since beginning this year, leaving three dozen coalition soldiers and eight Afghans dead.

The Taliban-led insurgency has been rampant since the militant group launched annual spring offensive on May 3 against Afghan government and about 100,000 NATO-led troops.


UN envoy: Afghanistan not headed for collapse
By DEB RIECHMANN | Associated Press – Tue, Oct 9, 2012
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The international community will continue supporting Afghanistan after U.S. and NATO combat forces leave the war-wracked nation by the end of 2014, a top U.N. envoy said Tuesday.

Jan Kubis said he heard strong commitment for Afghanistan at a recent U.N. Security Council meeting and dismissed predictions that the nation was headed for collapse after the foreign troops withdraw.

"That commitment is based not on the expectation of seeing Afghanistan collapsing after 2014," Kubis told reporters at a news conference in Kabul. "On the contrary, there is an expectation that Afghanistan will work, will develop with problems, with challenges, with difficulties — maybe more than now — but still will develop."

Fears have been looming that Afghanistan, which remains bitterly divided and where ethnic tensions still simmer, could again fracture along ethnic lines once the foreigners leave — as it did after the Soviet exit from Afghanistan in the 1990s.

"The international community is ready to do everything possible to support Afghanistan and frankly, to help Afghanistan not lapse into these kind of doom-and-gloom scenarios that are coming from different places," said Kubis, the U.N. envoy to Afghanistan.

His remarks contrast those of other experts and envoys, such as Reto Stocker, the outgoing head of the International Red Cross mission in the country, who said Monday that civilians remain in greater danger and with less hope for peace than when he arrived seven years ago.

Also on Monday, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group's senior Afghan analyst Candace Rondeaux warned of a "real risk that the regime in Kabul could collapse" after the NATO pullout.

She said the Afghan army and police are overwhelmed and underprepared for the transition and that if the upcoming presidential election is tainted by corruption, the unrest that could follow would push Afghanistan to a "breaking point.'

However, Kubis said he was encouraged by the work being done by the Afghan government, the election commission, civil society institutions and political forces to ensure the 2014 presidential election is free and fair.

The constitution bars Afghan President Hamid Karzai from running for a third term.

"We have no other intention but to support a good, democratic election in this country, including financial support," Kubis said, adding that it's still unclear how much money the international community will pledge to support the election.

Elsewhere in Afghanistan, clashes broke out between Taliban fighters and Afghan policemen in Archi district of Kunduz province in the north. Four policemen were killed, said provincial police spokesman Sarwar Hussaini.

The number of casualties among Afghan security forces has been on the rise as international forces draw down in numbers and the Afghan troops shift into a more frontline role in the war against the Taliban and other insurgent groups.

Civilians have also continued to suffer heavy casualties from bombings and targeted killings.


U.N. defends recommendation to postpone Afghanistan trip
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations defended on Wednesday its recommendation that the 15-member U.N. Security Council postpone a planned visit to Afghanistan this month over security concerns after some diplomats questioned the U.N. threat assessment.

Diplomats said last week's decision to postpone the trip came after U.N. security chief Gregory Starr recommended they not travel to Afghanistan in the coming weeks, citing concerns for the safety of council diplomats.

Some council diplomats privately questioned the U.N. recommendation as vague, but others told Reuters it would be unwise to question Starr's assessment of the risk level in Afghanistan.

U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq said a security assessment had been made to the council based on the best information available.

"We stand by the recommendation, but will not comment further," he said.

The council had also planned to stop in Yemen on the same trip. Starr also had advised against visiting there, envoys said.

They added that there were no complaints about Starr's recommendation to avoid Yemen, which has been in upheaval since a popular uprising ousted longtime President Ali Abdullah Saleh in February.

U.S.-backed Afghan forces toppled the Taliban government in late 2001 when it refused to hand over al Qaeda militants, including Osama bin Laden, after the Islamist network's hijacked airliner attacks on the United States on September 11 that year.

The U.N. Security Council unanimously extended on Tuesday its authorization of a NATO-led International Security Assistance Force for another year. The United Nations also has a political, development and aid mission in Afghanistan.

Foreign troops have started handing over security control to Afghan soldiers and police, a process due to be completed by the end of 2014. A smaller NATO-led training and advisory mission is expected to remain, but NATO has given no details yet.

Russia warned on Wednesday it will stop cooperating with NATO on Afghanistan after 2014 unless the alliance gets U.N. Security Council authorization for its new training mission in Afghanistan.

A NATO official said only that it would be "helpful" to have a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the post-2014 training mission, but stopped short of saying it was essential.

The United Nations has a mission in Afghanistan with staff at a number of compounds across the country. An attack on the U.N. location in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif last year killed at least 12 people, including seven U.N. staff members.

In October 2010, several militants were killed when they attempted to ambush the U.N. compound in Herat dressed in burkas worn by women.

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols and Louis Charbonneau; Editing by Eric Beech)


NATO must have U.N. mandate for post-2014 Afghan mission - Russia
By Adrian Croft
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Russia will stop cooperating with NATO over Afghanistan after 2014 unless the alliance gets U.N. Security Council authorisation for its new training mission in Afghanistan, a senior Russian diplomat said on Wednesday.

A NATO official said only that it would be "helpful" to have a U.N. Security Council resolution authorising the post-2014 training mission, but stopped short of saying it was essential.

Nikolay Korchunov, Russia's acting ambassador to NATO, did not specify what any halt to Russian cooperation with NATO on Afghanistan after 2014 would mean, but Russia will be an important transit route for NATO as it ships out billions of dollars of equipment from Afghanistan in the next few years.

NATO defence ministers meeting in Brussels gave military experts the go-ahead on Wednesday to begin detailed planning of the post-2014 training and advisory mission that will start after NATO ends combat operations in Afghanistan.

"Let's proceed from the assumption that any such mission should be based on an international mandate," Korchunov said in written emailed replies to questions sent by Reuters.

"It is a pre-condition both for carrying on the operation and for our cooperation with NATO on that issue post-2014."

Korchunov told Reuters that by international mandate he meant a new United Nations Security Council resolution.

The current mission of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan is endorsed by the U.N. Security Council.

But the nature of the mission will change after 2014, when ISAF is due to hand over security duties in the whole country to Afghan forces, possibly requiring a new resolution.

The new training and advisory mission is expected to be much smaller, but NATO has given no details yet.

RESOLUTION "HELPFUL"

Responding to Korchunov's comments, a NATO official said it would be "helpful" to have a U.N. Security Council resolution in support of NATO's planned post-2014 mission.

Pressed on whether NATO could go ahead with the post-2014 without a U.N. resolution, the official said: "NATO of course takes its decisions autonomously based on the consensus of its allies. All its missions are based and conducted according to the principles of the United Nations charter."

"Clearly it is in the interest of the whole international community and of countries in the region, including Russia, to have a stable Afghanistan with the right training, advice and assistance for the Afghan security forces," the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said.

German Defence Minister Thomas de Maiziere told reporters that an invitation from the Afghan government was a "pre-condition" for the post-2014 NATO mission.

"And we would want to have a U.N. resolution, a resolution of the U.N. Security Council, too," he told reporters at the NATO meeting on Tuesday evening.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is a regular critic of NATO. But he has backed cooperation with NATO on Afghanistan, allowing the use of Russian territory for transit and supplies.

However, any wrangling involving the Security Council could prove problematic. International pressure on Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, has been curbed after by Russia and China blocking Western-backed draft U.N. resolutions.

NATO must send home or dispose of 200,000 shipping containers and vehicles as it scales down its combat mission in Afghanistan over the next few years and the Russian route is important to lessen its dependence on Pakistan.

Pakistan re-opened NATO transit lines through its territory in July after months of closure over a NATO air strike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

(Additional reporting by Angelika Stricker)


Kabul Prepares for U.S. Talks
Afghanistan Wants New Pact to Curtail American Troops' Immunity, Official Says
Wall Street Journal By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV And NATHAN HODGE October 9, 2012
KABUL - Afghanistan's demands to curtail immunity for U.S. forces will be a main stumbling block in negotiations over the long-term American military presence here, Afghan National Security Adviser Rangin Dadfar Spanta said, highlighting the issue that derailed similar U.S. talks with Iraq a year ago.

Mr. Spanta explained Kabul's negotiating positions in an interview as the lead American negotiator arrived in the Afghan capital for meetings to prepare for the talks on a bilateral security agreement, which are slated to start in the coming days.

At stake is the future of U.S. influence in this strategic region after more than a decade of war—including whether the U.S. will be able to fight al Qaeda and other extremist groups in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan's tribal lands.

Both sides said the discussions won't be easy. The talks come at a time of distrust between the two governments, when U.S. officials are angry over increasingly frequent incidents of Afghan troops turning their weapons on American soldiers, and after Afghan President Hamid Karzai has criticized the conduct of the war and what he sees as U.S. violations of Afghan sovereignty.

The State Department declined to comment on the substance of the negotiations.

Several disagreements must be bridged by the talks, including an Afghan demand that the U.S. military intervene to defend the country from external attacks, such as persistent cross-border shelling from Pakistan over the last several months.

Mr. Spanta told The Wall Street Journal he hoped the new agreement will "bring more clarity" as to what the U.S. response would be if Pakistani forces bomb Afghan territory.

Kabul is also pressing the U.S. for costly modern military equipment, such as tanks and fighter jets—something that U.S. officials oppose, saying that Afghanistan doesn't need this weaponry to fight the insurgency and lacks the experience and manpower to operate it.

"Afghanistan's expectation is NATO-standard," said Mr. Spanta. "We cannot have a paramilitary army, and a paramilitary police force."

The toughest issue, however, could be the U.S. demand for immunity from Afghan justice for U.S. service members who commit crimes or accidentally kill civilians after the current U.S.-led military mission ends in 2014, Mr. Spanta said.

"As a very Muslim country, as a very proud countrythe public opinion here is very sensitive in this regard," Mr. Spanta said. "This is not an easy job, but we can find a solutionin harmony with Afghan sovereignty."

"Neighboring countries," an expression Afghan officials usually reserve for Pakistan and Iran, will also try to derail the agreement by whipping up public hostility to any immunity for Americans, he added.

In Iraq, Washington's ability to influence the government in Baghdad was greatly diminished by December's pullout of American forces, ordered by President Barack Obama after Baghdad refused to accept the U.S. demand that remaining U.S. troops be immune from Iraqi jurisdiction.

The issue of immunity gained particular prominence in Afghanistan after a U.S. soldier allegedly murdered 17 people in Kandahar province in March. The U.S. quickly spirited the suspect, Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, out of the country to face trial in the U.S., despite Afghan demands that he face Afghan justice or be publicly tried on Afghan soil.

While Iraq ended legal immunity for U.S. contractors in negotiations over a status of forces agreement with the administration of George W. Bush, U.S. troops remained exempt from Iraqi law.

Afghan officials have indicated that they could compromise on the issue of immunity for on-duty personnel, but insisted that off-duty American soldiers and officials—such as Sgt. Bales, who allegedly left his base without permission during the Kandahar rampage—can't be exempted from Afghan law.

That, however, is unlikely to be accepted by the U.S., American officials said.

"Both sides know it is going to be very difficult," a Western official said. "The Afghans want us out of their hair, but they also know that they need us—and they resent the fact that they need foreigners."

Afghanistan can't afford to fund its government and security forces without billions of dollars in U.S. aid. That, analysts said, is likely to make Mr. Karzai more amenable than Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was last year, with Baghdad counting on oil revenue to sustain the Iraqi economy.

"The current Afghan government as we know it would cease to exist without the security and the financial support provided to it by the U.S. and NATO allies," said Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress think-tank, which is close to the Obama administration. "And it's not like China or Russia are rushing in to fill any potential gaps."

Stephen Biddle, a defense expert at George Washington University who advised the Pentagon, said it was important that the negotiation process not become a "zero-sum conflict" between Afghan sovereignty concerns and U.S. national-security priorities.

Confusion among senior Afghan officials about U.S. intentions—reinforced by conspiracy theories about Washington's supposed desire to use Afghanistan as a military launch pad against Iran—"makes it hard for both sides to have a consistent sense of where the real bargaining space lies," Mr. Biddle said.

Mr. Spanta said he had been closely studying the negotiations that the U.S. held with Iraq, as well as Washington's security agreements with European countries and nations such as Egypt.

Under a strategic partnership deal signed by Messrs. Obama and Karzai in May, the U.S. and Afghanistan should complete the so-called Bilateral Security Agreement, which outlines the details of future American presence, within 12 months.

The lead Afghan negotiator is the country's ambassador in Washington, Eklil Hakimi. The American negotiating team is led by the U.S. deputy special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Amb. James Warlick. Both men are in Kabul this week to prepare for the formal start of the talks, officials said.

The U.S. hasn't specified how quickly the current troop levels will be withdrawn before the end of 2014, and the outlines of any U.S. military presence after 2014 are still far from clear. Mr. Spanta said the U.S. hasn't told the Afghans how many bases it seeks to keep, or how many troops it would need to remain for training and advising the Afghan security forces and for carrying out counterterrorist operations.

Western officials have mentioned the residual American force as ranging from a few thousand to some 20,000. There are currently 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, down from a peak of more than 100,000 last year.

U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Kenneth Dahl, who oversees logistics throughout Afghanistan, said the coalition was already creating a new staff to help with planning for the post-2014 presence. The military, he added, had "learned a lot of lessons" from the transition to a State Department-led mission in Iraq, and is already busily working on preparing that changeover here.

"The most important thing about a war," Gen. Dahl added, "is how it ends."

Write to Yaroslav Trofimov at yaroslav.trofimov@wsj.com and Nathan Hodge atnathan.hodge@wsj.com


Taliban shooting of 14-year old sparks outrage in Pakistan
Hundreds of people took to the streets to show their anti-Islamist sentiment after the Pakistani Taliban took responsibility for shooting a 14-year-old Pakistani girl in the head.
By Mahvish Ahmed | Christian Science Monitor
Political leaders and media have joined students, activists, and a broad segment of Pakistanis in condemning the Pakistani Taliban for shooting a 14-year-old girl in the head and neck, leaving her in critical condition this week.

The girl, Malala Yousafzai, is a children's rights activist who blogged about life under the Taliban also known as Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) when it occupied her home district of Swat in 2009. She is known for her media appearances bringing attention to atrocities carried out by the militant group.

The shooting prompted widespread outrage against the Pakistani Taliban and Islamist militancy among ordinary Pakistanis – and some hope that the strong reaction would prompt some type of change. Though officials have offered a 10 million rupee ($105,000) reward for information leading to the arrest of the girl's assailants, human rights activists, however, remain skeptical.

“This is not the first time that extremist militant groups have carried out atrocities. I am pleased to see the strong reaction, but fear that little will change,” says I. A. Rehman, the Secretary-General of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

QUIZ: Think you know Asia? Take this quiz and see.

A TTP gunman sought out Malala on a school bus on Tuesday and shot her twice. Two other girls sustained injuries, and one was in critical condition on Wednesday. Malala is now “out of danger,” according to surgeons who have successfully removed both bullets.

But Ehsanullah Ehsan, the TTP Spokesman who claimed responsibility for the shooting, says that the militant group would attack her again if she survives.

“She was pro-West, she was speaking against the Taliban and she was calling President Obama her idol,” he said in a statement. “She was young but she was promoting Western culture in Pashtun areas.” Malala and her father, Ziauddin Yousafzai, have been on a TTP hit list since 2011.

POLITICIANS RESPOND

Politicians from across the political divide reacted strongly and immediately to the TTP attack on Twitter.

“The attack on Malala Yousaf Zai is deplorable, and I strongly condemn this act. I hope that she will recover soon inshaALLAH,” wrote Syed Munawwar Hassan, the leader of the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami party in a tweet.

“Malala is the daughter of our nation and if she is not safe then no child is safe in this country,” said the Pakistani Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf in a speech before the Senate earlier today.

Cricketer-turned-politician, Imran Khan, who recently led a march against drone attacks in Pakistan's tribal areas, has also condemned the shooting, calling it a “cowardly attack” by “brutal terrorists.” He has offered to take on all expenses for any medical treatment or travel that Malala or her family require.

Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani visited Malala at the hospital and described the attack on Malala “heinous” and said it exposed an “extremist mindset” in Pakistan – the Pakistani Taliban has also beheaded Pakistani soldiers and threatened attacks on the military.

BACK IN SWAT

Schools in Swat closed in protest against the killing. Some 200 people from Pakistan’s civil society showed up at a vigil in front of Lahore Press Club in Pakistan's cultural capital. Hundreds also gathered for protests across the country – including Pakistan's political and commercial capitals, Karachi and Islamabad.

The Pakistani Taliban gained significant control of Swat, once known for its peaceful ski resorts and vacations spots for Islamabad’s elite, in 2006 and occupied it from March to May 2009: the same period that Malala wrote a blog under a pseudonym for BBC Urdu.

Who are the Taliban and what do they want? 5 key points

The Pakistani military pushed out the TTP from Swat during an operation in May 2009 that killed 1,200 Taliban fighters and 90 Pakistani soldiers, according to the Pakistan Army. The operation was declared a success by the Army, and it’s still under the Army control, though that hasn’t stopped such attacks from happening.

WHERE IS THE WAY FORWARD?

Pakistan continues to debate whether the acts of violence by Islamist militants require a political or a military solution. Mr. Khan advocates political negotiations, arguing that military approaches only increases militancy.

However, the TTP is widely considered to be splintered after a 2009 drone attack killed its leader, Baitullah Mehsud, in the Zangar area of South Waziristan, prompting a leadership crisis. The group’s divisions and splintering makes it more difficult to identify central leadership or cells.

Security analyst Ayesha Siddiqa questions the notion that the splinters make too much of a difference: "All these Islamist groups are inter-related. You cannot see the TTP separately from, for example, the Haqqani network, which we all know has links to the Pakistani Army. If our security forces are serious about dealing with the TTP they need to deal with all of these groups, and in a holistic manner,” says Ms. Siddiqa.

“For everyone who seems to think Malala's assassination attempt is some 'moment' – Pakistan had lots of them and guess what happened? Nothing,” tweeted journalist at Pakistan's Express Tribune, Saba Imtiaz, in reaction to a raging debate on Pakistan's social media after the news of Malala's shooting reached the rest of the country.


Profile: Shot Pakistani Teen Stood Up To The Taliban
By Ron Synovitz October 10, 2012 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Malala Yousafzai was just 11 years old when she began writing an anonymous diary for the BBC's Urdu Service about the Pakistani Taliban's crackdown on girls' education.

Now aged 14 and known throughout the country for her courage in speaking out against the hard-line Islamist group's influence in her home region, she finds herself hospitalized after a gun attack on the minibus she and her classmates were riding in as they left their girls' school on October 9.

Within hours of the shooting in Mingora, the largest city in the northwestern Swat district, the Tehrik-i Taliban Pakistan claimed responsibility for the attack.

Yousafzai's online descriptions of life as a schoolgirl under Taliban rule began in January 2009. The Pakistani Taliban had been the de facto rulers of Swat District, located near the border with Afghanistan, since 2003.

Writing under the pseudonym "Gul Makai," Yousafzai described how the Taliban ordered the closure of schools in Swat as part of their ban on girls' education.

Her father, Zaiuddin Yousafzai, was the owner of a private girls' school until the Taliban forced him to shut it down.

At the same time, some 50,000 Pakistani girls across Taliban-controlled territory also were forced to stop going to school.

The Threat Of Taliban Guns

Yousafzai documented the sadness that she and her classmates felt about losing their education under the threat of Taliban guns.

"I felt hurt on opening my wardrobe and seeing my uniform, school bag and geometry box," she wrote on February 8, 2009. "Boys' schools are opening tomorrow. But the Taliban have banned girls' education. The memories of my school flashed before me, especially the arguments among the girls."

Yousafzai's diary related the fears of local children in Swat about Taliban militants who were executing townspeople and destroying school buildings -- particularly girls' schools.

She also eventually described how she and her family, along with most of her schoolmates, fled the Swat region to escape fighting after more than 12,000 Pakistani soldiers launched a government offensive against the Taliban.

After Pakistan's army regained control of Swat, Yousafzai's real identity was revealed to the world.

Bold and articulate -- and fluent in Pashto, Urdu, and English -- she spoke openly to both Pakistani and foreign media about how fear permeated every aspect of life under Taliban rule.

National Peace Award

In late 2011, Pakistan's government awarded Yousafzai with the "National Peace Award for Youth."

She also became the first Pakistani girl to be nominated for the International Children's Peace Prize -- a nomination announced by South Africa's Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmund Tutu.

Although she ultimately did not receive that award, Yousafzai told RFE/RL's Radio Mashaal in late 2011 that being nominated was a "great honor."

"This was the first time that a child from Pakistan was nominated for the award," she said. "This is an honor for Pakistan. And I am also happy because it is an honor for our country."

With the attention of the international media focused on her, Yousafzai also announced her dream to someday form and lead a political party in Pakistan that would focus on the right of girls to receive an education.

"I want to become such an inspiring leader to lead the nation, Pakistan," she said. "Along with that, I also want to serve humanity in whatever shape and form that may be."

In March, Yousafzai was included on a list of "100 Women Who Matter," which was put together by the Pakistani edition of "Newsweek" magazine.

Yousafzai's notoriety and firsthand narratives certainly directed national and international attention toward educational issues in Pakistan. But it also infuriated the Pakistani Taliban.

A spokesman for Tehrik-i Taliban Pakistan told RFE/RL's Radio Mashaal in March that Yousafzai had been placed on the militants' "hit list."

Pakistani Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf condemned the attack and called Yousafzai a "daughter of Pakistan."

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland called the shooting "barbaric" and "cowardly."

Leila Zerrougui, the UN special representative for children in armed conflict, condemned the attack "in the harshest terms."

Written by RFE/RL correspondent Ron Synovitz in Prague, with reporting by RFE/RL Radio Mashaal correspondents in Islamabad and Peshawar


2014 Election Date Will be Revealed Next Month: IEC
TOLOnews.com By Jawed Stanikzai Tuesday, 09 October 2012
Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission (IEC) on Tuesday said that it will set the date for the 2014 presidential election in one month.

IEC chief Fazil Ahmad Manawi said in a press conference that consultations are ongoing with government and civil society organisations, but a decision would be made soon.

"In one month, the election date will announced by the commission," Manawi said, adding that the international community has undertaken to support the election.

Amid concerns that the election must be transparent and fair, the commission stressed that the election will adhere to the country's Constitution and no interference will be allowed.

The IEC chief stressed that strategic planning was underway with civil societies, political parties and media, to ensure these aims were met.

"Everything depends on the Election Commission – we request everyone to not accept anyone else as a commission representative," Manawi said.

He added that the election will work if the identification cards from last election were used.

But some political parties demand that the next Presidential election use electronic ID cards or risk being fraudulent.

Deputy of the Right and Justice Party Moen Marastyal told TOLOnews Tuesday: "Only the distribution of electronic identity cards can prevent fraud in the election but the responsible ministries have not managed to prepare these in the last five years."

The IEC said that 7,000 voting centers will be set up all over the country and efforts to prevent fraud will involve coordination of security forces.

Previously, the security situation, lack of budget, and poor population statistics contributed to difficult elections which were later said to have involved fraud.

The announcement comes a day after the global International Crisis Group warned that Afghanistan faced a political meltdown if the problems of the 2009 election were repeated.


Afghan offers bounty for anti-Islam filmmaker
Associated
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — A religious cleric in western Afghanistan said Wednesday he is offering a $300,000 bounty to anyone who kills the maker of an anti-Islam film that has angered Muslims around the world.

Mir Farooq Hussini, a cleric and the spokesman for an organization representing about 450 religious schools in Herat province, made the latest bounty offer.

U.S. federal prosecutors said Mark Basseley Youssef, 55, an Egyptian-born Christian who is now a U.S. citizen, is behind the film, which portrays Islam's Prophet Muhammad as a religious fraud, womanizer and child molester.

The film led to violence last month, causing the deaths of more than 50 people, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

In a telephone interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, Hussini called the movie maker a "dirty person."

At least three names have been associated with Youssef in the past several weeks. U.S. court documents show Youssef legally changed his name from Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in 2002, but never told federal authorities, who used that as part of the probation violation case against him.

Youssef used a third name, Sam Bacile, in association with the film.

Last month the Pakistan Taliban offered a bounty of $100,000 for killing the filmmaker. A Pakistani Cabinet minister made a similar offer, but it was disavowed by his government. Also, a former Pakistani legislator put forth a $200,000 reward.

Hussini said he also is offering a $500,000 reward for the killing of Mehdi Daneshmand, a cleric in Yazd province in neighboring Iran. Hussini has alleged that the cleric insulted Muhammad's wife.


Obama, Romney: Ignore Afghanistan war at your own peril
CNN By Mujib Mashal, Special to CNN October 10, 2012
Editor's note: Mujib Mashal is a Kabul-based writer whose work has appeared in Time magazine, the New York Times, al-Jazeera English and other international publications.

"Can I have a Blackhawk magazine vest?" the young man, in his mid twenties sporting a scruffy beard and cargo pants, asked.

"With four magazine pouches, or six?" the shopkeeper responded.

A six-pouch vest was sold for $27.

In this market in the center of Kabul with over 50 shops, you can find anything from used U.S. army fatigues to Campbell's New England clam chowder and Uncle Ben's classic cornbread stuffing mix.

Some of it is gear thrown away from the largest U.S. military base in Bagram, just a 45-minute drive north of Kabul, and some of it is stolen goods from the massive convoys supplying U.S. soldiers around the country. In recent years, the market has also been corrupted -- like many other things in Afghanistan -- and flooded with Chinese bootlegged goods.

But one thing about this market has stayed the same -- nearly four years after the 43rd U.S. president left office, it's still named after him: the Bush Market.

As American voters prepare to choose between Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney, Afghans fear that the silence over this war during the campaign means it has been relegated further down in U.S. foreign policy priorities.

"We had high hopes that this war, as the U.S.'s most pressing foreign policy issue, would stir a debate among the candidates," said Fawzia Koofi, a member of the Afghan parliament.

"But the war is no longer acceptable to most of the Americans -- and the candidates have skillfully skirted around the issue, talking about it based on U.S. realities and not realities on the ground in Afghanistan."

But for Afghanistan, a change at the White House in shaky times during this 11-year-old war would have clear consequences, just as the war's evolution since the Bush administration shows.

Ordinary Afghans, says Gran Hewad of the Afghan Analyst Network, are watching two issues in the candidates' agendas.

"Afghans are mostly concerned with the candidates' stance on Pakistan, and their plans and promises for post-2014 (U.S. troop withdrawal)," says Hewad. The Afghan and American governments have repeatedly cited Pakistan as the sanctuary for the Taliban leadership, from where they lead their increasingly adaptive insurgency inside Afghanistan.

A public debate about how each of the candidates plans to proceed in Afghanistan after U.S. drawdown by 2014 is crucial because so much of the country's immediate fate, particularly economically, is tied to the U.S. presence.

"What has the U.S. done for my life in the past decade that I can afford to watch the news?" responded a Kabul taxi driver when asked whether he is aware of the U.S. election. "I make $400 a month in my day job and drive taxi at night -- when do I have time to know who is better, Obama or the other one."

For years, the vast number of U.S. military vehicles on Kabul streets was a daily reminder of the country's dependency on America. Today, Afghan forces have largely replaced them.

But every time a young Afghan loses his or her job because a Western company tied to America's presence here is packing up, the dependency is felt in a more profound way.

In the past decade, Afghanistan has seen the development of a younger professional class, much thanks to the opportunities of higher education offered by newly opened affordable private universities. This professional class answers the dire lack of capacity and speaks to a much-needed generational shift that is necessary in Afghanistan.

The growth of the young professional class has happened in a very predatory economic environment. The pouring in of U.S. dollars has inflated the market, creating an unprecedented culture of corruption -- as well as a new elite who believe money can get them everything.

Two former commanders in the north were locked in a heated rivalry over a seat in the parliament during the 2010 election, as a commonly told story in Afghanistan goes. One of them offered to settle the issue through a peculiar challenge: "Let's start a fire of dollar bills under two separate pots and cook a meal. Whoever's cooked first would be the winner of the seat."

The story illustrates the new money-fuelled political reality in today's Afghanistan.

A campaign debate over the future of America's role in Afghanistan would make it clear whether Washington has the patience to see through the generational shift in Afghanistan, leaving it in a more sustainable state, or whether it will leave it cold in its current political quagmire.

Major campaign developments such as Mitt Romney's tax releases and the first presidential debate found slots in the Afghan evening news. ToloNews, the country's largest private channel, picked up Paul Ryan's criticism on a radio channel of Obama's policy in Afghanistan -- a manifestation of how curious the Afghan audience is about their agendas, pouncing on any hint they give. Ryan said Obama's decision to withdraw 33,000 troops out of Afghanistan had been a political one that put the lives of remaining soldiers at risk.

"We would never put politics ahead of what our commanders say is necessary to do the job and keep our soldiers as safe as possible when they're prosecuting this war," Ryan said.

But the print press largely seems disappointed in the lack of debate on the war here.

"The developments in the Arab world and the crisis in the West's relations with Iran over the nuclear program has resulted in Afghanistan being relegated into a secondary issue for the U.S. and the West," read one editorial in 8-Subh, the country's largest private newspaper, last month.

"Experience has shown that forgetting Afghanistan is a strategic mistake," the editorial concluded.

In Afghanistan, where power has been progressively centralized in president Hamid Karzai, it is more important to gauge what he might be looking for in the U.S. elections.

The next U.S. president, whoever he is, will have to deal with Karzai. And regardless of which of the many scenarios materialize after Karzai's current (and final) presidential term ends, one thing is clear: he will remain a major power broker in Afghanistan.

Over the past decade Karzai has undoubtedly had a much warmer relationship with the Republicans. He enjoyed great access to George Bush until the end of his term. A sign of the consistency in their relationship, Karzai and Bush talked via videoconference once a month.

"The president would have his son, Mirwais, on his lap. Laura would be sitting next to Bush. It was quite a warm relationship," one Karzai aide recalled.

When president Obama took office, he put an end to the monthly conferences, taking a harsher stance against Karzai -- one that has clearly backfired.

Karzai has increasingly felt the Democrats have tried to undermine him, particularly when he ran for his final reelection.

"The president believed they weren't trying to defeat him, but to wound him," a Karzai confidant said. A wounded Karzai, with his local legitimacy undermined, would be more obliging of White House orders.

The messy election went to the second round. Karzai remained in office, but a very changed man in his views towards America and the democrats.

While Karzai might be favoring a return of the Republicans, Afghan lawmaker Koofi believes he won't enjoy as warm a relationship even if Romney wins.

"Karzai's performance in recent years -- his inability to improve governance that is seriously putting the U.S. project at risk of failure -- means he will be a liability for the Republicans to have a warm relationship with," said Koofi.

A Republican return to the White House, Koofi says, might return the focus to the war against terrorism at a time when a much hyped "peace process" is not bringing results.

The Republicans have maintained a much clearer definition of the Taliban, while under the Democrats the definition has been blurred during efforts to reach a negotiated settlement to the war. But others believe it's not the Republican party of four years ago that would push for continuing this war. They want out of Afghanistan as much as Obama does.

No matter who wins the November vote in the U.S, one thing is clear: the Bush Market in Kabul is likely to retain its name after the Republican who began this war.

"During the time of the Russians, there was a market named after Brezhnev," said Haji Khan Agha, a retired army officer who owns a shop at Bush Market. "Many years after Gorbachev had come to power, the market was still called the Brezhnev Market."


Talking Our Way Out Of Afghanistan
NATO needs to negotiate with the Taliban NOW, before all the troops -- and our leverage -- are gone.
Foreign Policy BY MATT WALDMAN OCTOBER 9, 2012
The New York Times reported last week that U.S. officials have all but abandoned hope of achieving a peace settlement in Afghanistan before the bulk of foreign troops withdraw by the end of 2014. That's not as bad as it sounds. After all, the Geneva negotiations in the 1980s, which culminated in the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, lasted six years.

But it would be a serious mistake to give up on negotiations altogether. So long as NATO has substantial numbers of troops on the ground, it has leverage. The Taliban see those troops as their biggest threat, and withdrawal has long been the insurgents' foremost demand. What's more, the coalition has the ability to grant the Taliban a measure of international legitimacy, which the group craves.

The United States and its allies have a choice: They can withdraw unilaterally and squander their leverage, or they can engage with the Taliban and get something in return. They should use their influence to establish and structure a dialogue that could pave the way to a negotiated peace.

Despite the prevailing mood of pessimism, current conditions in Afghanistan favor talks. Coalition forces and Taliban insurgents are in what negotiation theorists call a "mutually hurting stalemate," meaning that neither side believes it can escalate to victory. In such circumstances -- which existed between Soviet forces and the Afghan mujahideen in the mid- to late 1980s -- leaders have incentives to negotiate because they are caught in costly deadlock and see limits to what they can gain from further fighting.

Some observers assume the Taliban have no real interest in talks because Western forces have already said they are leaving. Moreover, the Taliban remain a powerful force. They have a substantial operational presence in the south, southeast, east, and west of Afghanistan, maintain secure bases in Pakistan, and sustain a high tempo of attacks against Afghan and coalition forces. According to NATO, over the past five months insurgents have launched an average of around 100 attacks a day -- significantly more than prior to the 2010 U.S. troop surge.

But the Taliban are fatigued and divided. Contacts I have had with the Taliban over the past three years indicate that many leaders are wary of hard-line insurgent factions and are uneasy about life after 2014. They expect a revival of anti-Taliban forces, bloody power struggles, U.S. drone strikes, resistance from communities, and international ostracism. They are looking for personal safety, political influence, and international recognition. They are prepared to fight -- but would prefer not to.

Observers also tend to assume the Taliban would only settle for absolute power through the restoration of the Islamic Emirate, the fundamentalist theocracy they presided over in Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001. Undoubtedly, some elements of the Taliban still have such ambitions, but there are also signs of pragmatism. In August, Taliban leader Mullah Omar said, "The Islamic Emirate does not think of monopolizing power." In September, one of the Taliban's negotiators in Qatar said publicly that their goal was not to revive the former Taliban administration but to form "an Islamic government participated in by all people, reflecting the aspirations of all Afghan people, of all ethnic groups."

These statements reflect a significant shift in Taliban public policy. It may or may not reflect their true position -- which is difficult to discern given fissures in the group's leadership and Taliban efforts to win public backing -- but it at least suggests a dialogue is worth pursuing.

Why have attempts at dialogue failed so far? In March, talks between the United States and the Taliban stalled because of differences over what were intended to be demonstrations of good faith: the establishment of a Taliban office in Qatar and a U.S.-Taliban prisoner exchange. The United States has insisted that the Taliban publicly disavow al Qaeda and engage with the Afghan government. The Taliban have so far refused to do either.

In effect, confidence-building measures are undermining confidence. But there is no reason talks should depend on the establishment of an insurgent representative office. Nor do they need to proceed publicly, through official statements and media briefings. In fact, at least in the early stages of talks, publicity is generally unhelpful because adversaries inevitably compete with one another to project an image of strength. This partly explains why little progress was made between Israel and the PLO at the highly publicized Madrid talks in 1991, whereas the parties' secret talks in Oslo in 1993 culminated in a breakthrough.

The surest way to build trust is through confidential, multiparty talks without preconditions. For all intents and purposes, the Taliban have already disavowed al Qaeda. An April Taliban statement, which specifically addresses their relationship with the group, says, "We have no intention of causing harm to anyone, nor will we allow anyone else to use our soil against anyone else." The relationship between the Taliban and al Qaeda, moreover, is precisely the kind of issue that should be resolved in talks, rather than through premature public announcements.

As for the exclusion of Kabul, many Taliban leaders accept that they will eventually have to negotiate with Afghan officials. In fact, they have been quietly and informally talking to Afghan officials for years, albeit intermittently. Their concern is to avoid being seen to do so. Dropping the precondition relating to al Qaeda and, if necessary, facilitating shuttle or proximity talks might help connect the parties.

Confidential talks would also help address one of the biggest causes of mistrust between the parties: misperceptions. The United States and the Taliban, especially, are at fault for what political scientists call "attribution error." That is, each has tended to see its adversary's actions as driven by intrinsic hostility, rather than situational factors. Each overlooks its own role in provoking the other's behavior and downplays the possibility of legitimate motivations.

The United States and the Taliban have profoundly misunderstood each other. Insurgents have failed to appreciate the impact of the 9/11 attacks, the regime's harboring of Osama bin Laden, and the security concerns that have driven the U.S. response. Few U.S. officials grasped the Taliban's sense of exclusion and injustice or considered how U.S. forces could be seen as aggressors, given their role in causing civilian casualties and propping up a discredited regime.

Structured dialogue could help the various parties dismantle mutual misperceptions and acquire a better understanding of each other's perspectives and motives. But given the deep-seated mistrust between them, as well as the complexity of the issues, it would be naive to think the parties could manage talks by themselves. Negotiation to resolve armed conflict virtually always requires some form of external mediation. It can help the parties establish a framework and road map for talks, which is sorely needed in Afghanistan. It also helps promote constructive dialogue and sustain momentum when talks break down. In fact, in the absence of mediation, it is remarkable that the talks lasted as long as they did.

The search for a mediator is long overdue. But who should be it? The simple answer is: any individual, organization, or state that has the confidence of the parties and is up to the task. Because the strength of any dialogue depends on buy-in from each of the major parties to the conflict, the participation of Pakistan, the Taliban's longtime host and supporter, is essential. But the nature and scope of Pakistan's involvement requires consideration. Many would argue it should be limited to regional and security issues. But to exclude Pakistan completely would be to encourage it to act as a spoiler.

As the dialogue becomes more robust, it should expand to include representatives of Afghanistan's central and northern political factions, the country's wide range of social groups, and other states in the region. There are no guarantees that such talks will succeed. There are potential spoilers on all sides. The Taliban's demands, especially in terms of justice or social affairs, may be irreconcilable with international standards or the aspirations of the Afghan people. But it is impossible to make that kind of determination until there is real dialogue. It is an endeavor that is overwhelmingly supported by Afghans -- men and women -- from across the country.

The longer it takes to establish such a process, the greater the likelihood that the Taliban will negotiate from a position of strength, having made battlefield gains against Afghan security forces. By then, it will be more difficult to secure Taliban commitments to curb extremists or to preserve advances in human rights that have been made since 2001. As the U.S. presence declines, so does U.S. leverage. The United States should waste no time in using its remaining influence to establish a dialogue that could ultimately bring peace to Afghanistan.


Kunar Court Sentences Rapist, Murderer to Death
TOLOnews.com By Rafi Sediqi Tuesday, 09 October 2012
A man in eastern Kunar province was sentenced to death by the provincial Appeals Court on Tuesday for the rape and beheading of an 18-year-old woman who had refused to marry him.

The man, Nasim, was sentenced to death, while two of his accomplices, Yahya and Ehsanullah, were sentenced to six years in prison.

The court heard that Nasim had wanted to marry the woman Shabana, but both she and her father Qudratullah had refused. Three months ago, Nasim kidnapped Shabana for several days before returning her to her home in Kunar's Sokai district. He then returned a few days later while her father was away and raped her before beheading her.

"After listening to all the witnesses and the defense lawyer, and the prosecution in charge, we sentence Nasim to 12 years jail for rape and we sentence him to death for murder. Yahya and Ehsanullah were also found guilty and sentenced to up to six years in jail," head of Kunar's Appeal Court Mohammad Ashrat Amin said.

Shabana's younger sister Aisha told the court of the night Nasim came to the house asking for Shabana.

"It was late at night when a man beheaded my sister in the yard of our house. I ran to ask him the reason but he threatened to kill me as well. Then I ran away and I hid myself," Aisha said.

The father Qudratullah told the court that Nasim had wanted Shabana to be forced to marry him, but Qudratuallah refused as he wanted his daughter to complete her education before she married.

"This man wanted to marry my daughter by force. I told him that my daughter is still so young and I want her to complete her education. He threatened my family several times. I was in Jalalabad when this incident happened," he said, asking the court to sentence Nasim to the severest of punishments.

The defense lawyer of the accused Mohammad Taher Faisal said the evidence was incomplete for the prosecution's case and asked the court to release the men without charge.

"The evidence provided at the court are not acceptable to me and my clients are being detained without reason. I ask the court to release them immediately in accordance with the provisions of law," Faisal said.

However, the prosecutor Shah Mahmood argued that there was sufficient evidence to show that Nasim had already kidnapped Shabana once and he had threatened the family on many occasions.

"The evidence not only shows that Nasim murdered Shabana, but he also threatened the family many times before the incident. This person has a criminal background and should be punished along with his associates," Mahmood said.

Nasim was previously sentenced to death in the Kunar Primary Court after being found guilty of both rape and murder. His accomplices, who were charged with assisting him, were sentenced to 16 years prison.


Afghan Fury at Planned Pakistan Pact
Mixed messages as Kabul asks Pakistan to stop border shelling, then agrees to strategic partnership.
IWPR By Hafizullah Gardesh 9 Oct 12
Afghanistan - Talk of a strategic agreement with Pakistan has scandalised Afghans who believe their southern neighbour wants to undermine rather than help their conflict-torn country.

The pact came up apparently out of the blue during a meeting between Afghan president Hamid Karzai and his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York at the end of September. They agreed to instruct their foreign ministers to work together to draft a final agreement by the end of 2013.

At the meeting, Zardari told Karzai that Islamic militancy, terrorism and the drugs trade were common challenges on which their two countries must cooperate. Many Afghans, however, suspect the Pakistani authorities of covertly backing the Taleban and other insurgent groups in order to prolong instability.

In recent months, their sense of anger has been increased by wave upon wave of cross-border shell and rocket fire targeting the eastern Afghan provinces of Kunar, Nuristan and Nangarhar. Dozens of civilians in these border areas have been killed, and thousands forced to leave their homes. ( IWPR's report Afghans Say Pakistan Behind Cross-Border Fire looked at this issue.)

In late September – just as the two presidents were holding their meeting – residents of Nangarhar’s Lalpur and Goshta districts received news of an impending bombardment. They ignored the warning, but thousands then had to flee when the shelling started.

The Afghan government has faced mounting criticism at home for seeking a diplomatic solution rather than ordering a direct military response. (See also Heads Roll as Afghan Parliament Questions Defence Failures.) Karzai and his foreign minister Zalmay Rasul complained about the shelling during the United Nations assembly. When the Afghan defence and interior met tribal elders in Nangarhar on October 1, they again said diplomacy was the preferred approach.

In the last year, Afghanistan has signed strategic pacts with the United States and India, but Pakistan is a different matter altogether. Karzai’s critics say that with the cross-border shelling and many other issues still in dispute, it is hardly the time to be talking about strategic cooperation.

"We have signed many agreements but Pakistan has not delivered on even one per cent of its commitments, nor has it acted for the good of Afghans. It would do better to meet these prior commitments," parliamentarian Aryan Yun told IWPR. "Pakistan has shown its true colours to the Afghan people over the last 30 years. There’s no need to sign a strategic agreement with it now."

Meeting on October 2, Afghan members of parliament denounced the idea, saying it would be completely wrong to sign this kind of agreement with a country which behaved so aggressively towards their state.

"Instead of complaining to the UN Security Council and submitting documents and other evidence of Pakistani interference, Karzai has rushed to sign a pact with the Pakistanis,” said Sayed Fazel Hussein Sancharaki, spokesman for the opposition National Coalition. “Karzai has not only trampled on the country's national interests; he has destroyed Afghan pride in the process."

Sancharaki said the president was seeking to bolster his own position at any cost, and was prepared to do a deal with Islamabad in return for its support in the 2014 presidential election in which he would seek “to bring one of his relatives to power".

"It would be ridiculous to sign such a pact unless Pakistan was prepared to work honestly with Afghanistan and respect its national interests and territorial integrity," he added.

By contrast, the Truth and Justice Party gave the plan its official backing, though it wanted numerous conditions written into any agreement.

Speaking on September 30, party spokesman Hamidullah Faruqi said these terms should stipulate that “Pakistani military attacks on Afghan soil come to an end and that nests of terrorism inside Pakistan, which have fought against Afghan interests for the last 30 years, are eliminated."

Karzai’s spokesman Siamak Herawi attempted to dispel the anger by saying the strategic agreement was just an idea.

"This is no more than a proposal. There’s no written blueprint for this pact,” he told IWPR. “Parliament, civil society and the Afghan nation will be kept informed, and the content of the pact will be scrutinised by experts. So in general, a decision will be made once a general consensus has been achieved."

Despite being approached by IWPR several times, the Pakistani embassy in Kabul refused to give an interview on the issue.

Political analyst Abdul Satar Sadat said that in the current circumstances, talk of a bilateral treaty was premature.

“The pact will be signed in the midst of a conflagration, it isn’t certain whether it will survive the flames," he said.

Sadat said a lot of work needed to be done to build confidence at a political level, and one issue would certainly have to remain off-limits – the Durand Line, the contentious and poorly-defined Afghan-Pakistani boundary originally established in 1893. Islamabad would like to see the line formalised as the official frontier, but Kabul has never recognised it.

“If the Durand Line question is mentioned in the pact, it definitely cannot be signed," Sadat said.

He noted that greater trust would also have to exist at grassroots level. As an example of Afghan mistrust of Islamabad’s intentions, he recalled one case where army personnel were offered training scholarships in Pakistan.

“No one was prepared to go, except for two army bandsmen who wanted to learn the trumpet,” he said.

Hafizullah Gardesh is IWPR’s editor in Afghanistan.


www.afghanistannewscenter.com