Tweet
US suspends Kam Air ban as Afghanistan probes opium claim
AFP – Tue, Feb 5, 2013 01:43 GMT
The United States has suspended its blacklisting of Kam Air after the Afghan government promised an investigation into claims of opium trafficking by the airline, NATO's coalition force in Afghanistan ISAF announced.
A statement from ISAF said: "The Afghan government has agreed to conduct a full investigation of Kam Air and, if warranted, to take further action."
In return, the US "will support the Afghan government's investigation by providing evidence and documents as required," it said.
The US had banned Afghanistan's largest private airline from its list of potential military contractors, claiming the company on its civilians flights was conveying "bulk" quantities of opium to neighbouring Tajikistan, the Wall Street Journal revealed last week.
The impoverished Central Asian country is regarded as a key transit route used by drug smugglers.
Both the airline and Afghan authorities rejected the allegation. At the end of last month the government demanded proof of drug smuggling from American forces in Afghanistan, which they agreed to do.
ISAF said Monday that Central Command decided to suspend the ban because "it is an appropriate, logical course of action at this time for the sovereign Afghan government to conduct a full investigation of Kam Air."
The US discovered the alleged drug smuggling when it started scrutinising Kam Air after the airline sought a US contract, Richard Longo, the commander of Task Force 2010, a coalition anti-corruption unit, told the WSJ.
Ninety percent of the world's opium is produced is Afghanistan, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
Poppy farmers are taxed by Taliban militants who use the cash to help fund their insurgency against the Kabul government and NATO forces, UNODC said.
Afghan Peace Deal Sought in 6 Months
Leaders From Kabul, Islamabad Set First Timeline to Reach Accord; Taliban Seen Acquiescing to Talks
Wall Street Journal By MARIA ABI-HABIB February 4, 2013
KABUL - Afghan and Pakistani leaders agreed to seek a six-month timeline to reach a peace settlement with the Taliban, the first concrete target set for the long-sputtering reconciliation process.
The deal, made after talks hosted in Britain by Prime Minister David Cameron, is the latest effort in an international push to end the Afghan war.
Monday's talks between Mr. Cameron, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, follow December meetings in France between the Taliban and top Afghan politicians. Those were the first talks conducted by sanctioned representatives of both sides.
The Afghan Taliban's leadership is based in Pakistan, and U.S. and Afghan officials who have fought the insurgents for a decade say it enjoys material support from the Pakistani intelligence establishment.
With U.S.-led international forces preparing to withdraw next year, Western governments are seeking a political compromise with the Taliban to prevent the country from sliding back into civil war.
"All sides agreed on the urgency of this work and committed themselves to take all necessary measures to achieve the goal of a peace settlement over the next six months," the three leaders said in a joint statement.
Taliban spokesmen couldn't be reached when called and emailed for comment.
A major focus of the London meetings was the opening of a Taliban office in Doha, Qatar, which could serve as the base for peace talks with the Afghan government. No timeline has been set for the opening of that office. The Taliban so far refuse to negotiate with Kabul.
Afghan officials said privately that they were expecting the Taliban to soon express their willingness to negotiate with Kabul, a precondition for opening the Doha office. Taliban representatives already are operating out of Doha, and last year engaged in direct negotiations with the U.S.
The statement from talks in Britain appeared aimed at easing Mr. Karzai's fears that he would be cut out of peace process by the U.S., Pakistan or rival politicians. Mr. Karzai, who must step down from his office next year, has insisted reconciliation should be led by a special body that he created, the High Peace Council.
The Doha office, the joint statement said, would be set up "for the purpose of negotiations between the Taliban and the High Peace Council of Afghanistan as part of an Afghan-led peace process."
Kabul wants the Taliban office in Doha to be an "address for peace talks" and not a fundraising or political arm of the insurgency, said Aimal Faizi, Mr. Karzai's spokesman. "Peace [talks] should take months and weeks, not years," Mr. Faizi said in an interview. "If there are no talks, there should be no office."
Although Afghanistan's government has frequently condemned Pakistan for bolstering the insurgency, Afghan officials have been encouraged by recent Pakistani moves on reconciliation.
In November, Pakistan fulfilled Kabul's long-standing request to release from prison several top Taliban leaders with whom Kabul wants to negotiate.
Just before arriving in Britain, Mr. Karzai created a stir by slighting London's contribution to the Afghan war. British troops have paid a heavy price as the main foreign fighting force in southern Helmand province, one of Afghanistan's most dangerous. The U.K. has lost 440 troops in Afghanistan, out of 3,257 coalition deaths, says icasualties.org, an independent monitoring site.
In an interview with the Guardian and ITV News, Mr. Karzai said Helmand was safer before U.K. forces deployed there. "In 2002 through 2006, Afghanistan had a lot better security. When we had our own presence there, with very little foreign troops, schools were open in Helmand and life was more secure," the Afghan president said. "The exit of foreign forces will not bring more violence for them to perpetrate against their own people, but a serious, strong, good reduction in violence will occur."
Asked about Mr. Karzai's comments, Cameron spokesman Jean-Christophe Gray told the Associated Press, "We believe progress is being made. That is why we think the approach that we're taking is the right one." —Ziaulhaq Sultani and Habib Khan Totakhil contributed to this article.
Write to Maria Abi-Habib at maria.habib@dowjones.com
Afghanistan welcome reversing Kam Air from US blacklist
By Sayed Jawad - 05 Feb 2013, 2:16 pm Khaama Press
According to a statement released by office of spokesman and director general of communications of Afghanistan foreign ministry, the Afghan government welcomes the decision by the United States military to return its business relations with Kam Air to normal.
The source further added, This was the right decision to take.
“The Afghan government remains committed to conducting a full investigation into this whole matter, including through the examination of any and all evidence provided by the US military.” the statement added.
The U.S. military has lifted a ban on contracts with an Afghan airline suspected of drug smuggling after the decision to blacklist the carrier sparked anger throughout the Afghan government.
In a statement released late Monday, the military said it had temporarily removed Kam Air from its blacklist pending an investigation into the allegations by the Afghan government. U.S. law prohibits the American government from contracting with companies with ties to enemy forces.
The US had banned Afghanistan’s largest private airline from its list of potential military contractors, claiming the company on its civilians flights was conveying “bulk” quantities of opium to neighbouring Tajikistan, the Wall Street Journal revealed last week.
The United States military does not directly contract with Kam Air, but the lines are somewhat blurry because the military pays for many activities by the Afghan government.
The ban of one of Afghanistan’s largest commercial airlines rankled many inside the Afghan government at a particularly sensitive time in talks for a long-term agreement for U.S. forces in the country.
IMF, Afghanistan Reach 'Understandings' On Reform Path
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty February 5, 2013
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) says it has reached an agreement with Afghan authorities on a series of reforms that need to be implemented so the country can receive its next aid tranche.
The announcement was made following a two-week visit to Afghanistan by an IMF team.
The IMF granted Afghanistan a $133.6 million credit line in November 2011 to assist the country as foreign military forces withdraw during 2014.
The IMF has so far disbursed two installments totaling around $36 million.
An IMF statement said the IMF team had reached "understandings" with Afghan authorities on a reform path.
The initiatives include submission of new laws to parliament, the strengthening of the capital of banks, the strengthening of customs measures, and preparations to implement a value-added tax.
With reporting by AFP
Afghan newspapers looking with pessimism to trilateral summit in London
KABUL, Feb. 5 (Xinhua) -- Local newspapers in Afghanistan are looking with pessimism to the trilateral summit of President Hamid Karzai, his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari and their host, British Prime Minister David Cameron in London to bring Taliban on negotiating table.
In the summit where the peace process in Afghanistan and Kabul- Islamabad relations were discussed, which concluded on Monday, the three leaders announced satisfaction over their talks at a joint press conference in London on Monday.
The government of Afghanistan is struggling to find a way to talk with the Taliban and other insurgent groups over initiation of peace dialogue which ends the bloody chapter of more than a decade of war in the country, the English daily The Afghanistan Express writes in its editorial on Tuesday.
"Afghan, British and Pakistani leaders held a trilateral meeting in London to smooth the way for peace talks with Taliban and to strengthen cooperation on security and other bilateral issues between Afghanistan and Pakistan," it added.
It also added that Presidents Karzai and Zardari have agreed to spare no effort for cutting a peace deal within next six months.
"The six-month timeframe for reaching a deal with Taliban seems to be too wishful, as the Taliban does not seem to be prepared for beginning talks with the government of Afghanistan in next months, " the editorial said.
Another newspaper, the Daily Mandegar in its Tuesday's editorial writes, "the trilateral summit in London would benefit Taliban and Pakistan and not the peace process in Afghanistan."
"Like the past, benefiting from the so-called peace process, more Taliban will be released from Pakistani jail after London summit and Pakistan would continue to support Taliban in future," Daily Mandegar added.
Hasht-e-Subh is another local newspaper which focused on the summit, noting no peace efforts will deliver unless Pakistani military is enough pressed to take necessary action against Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistani soil.
"If Britain wants to play its due role in developing cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan it should exert pressure on Pakistan army to dismantle Taliban safe havens inside Pakistan," the daily Hasht-e-Subh writes in an article published in its Tuesday's edition.
Hamid Karzai interview: full transcript
Transcript of the interview with the Afghan president conducted by the Guardian's Emma Graham-Harrison and the ITV News correspondent Bill Neely
Guardian.co.uk Monday 4 February 2013
Q: President, thank you very much for talking to us, it's an honour for us. British and coalition troops are preparing for a long pullout. It's a time of transition. Transitions are often risky times, dangerous times, and some people are predicting a very dangerous period ahead for Afghanistan. What risks do you think lie ahead for Afghanistan? Is this a dangerous moment?
A: Transition of course has difficulties, of course as far as the abilities of the Afghan state are concerned. We are a newly rebuilding state of all the institutions that any state would need to make it run. That rebuilding has been going on now for 10 years, some with tremendously good success, some relatively all right. In areas where we began late, of course, this progress has to take some more years to come, the stability of institutions would take some more years to come. But that is not our concern, nor am I or the majority of Afghan people concerned about the end state of the transition, we will be fine. The important element for that state of being fine, for stability in Afghanistan, for continued progress in Afghanistan, even of the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan, is the good intention of our neighbours and the well-planned and of course also well-intentioned exit of foreign forces and the staying elements of those foreign forces in Afghanistan in the form of strategic agreements and eventually the – how should I put it? – the continued stay of the United States forces in Afghan facilities. So those elements will determine how stable and strong we are. On our own, as Afghans, we will be good. It's the external factors that will determine the extent of progress and stability or the lack of it.
But it's a period full of risk, the next 18 months?
Indeed, as any other social, political exercise, we will have our difficulties, we will have our challenges, but our challenges, our difficulties will not translate into instability. They will be challenges like we all have in our societies, we must overcome it. I am not concerned about stability. The instability, or difficulty, will be more external than internal to us, and that's what we are working on, that's why we are here in London for the tripartite [meeting with the UK prime minister, David Cameron, and the Pakistani president, Asif Ali Zardari] today and tomorrow.
For years we heard that British, American, coalition troops would pull out when the time was right, when there was stability, when there was security, because not to do so would be a betrayal, would be wrong. And yet troops are pulling out, and there is no, hand on heart, there's no complete security, there's no total stability. This is a strange situation and, again, full of risk.
Well, it depends on the purposes we all have. The international community, led by the United States, came to Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11. And with an objective to fight terrorism, and to secure the west and the United States, by extension, from Afghanistan. Now that they have planned to leave, it is perhaps in the western capitals they have concluded that they are more secure, that terrorism is on defeat, that also in Afghanistan there isn't a terrorism to fight, therefore they are leaving. The other side could be that they have felt that there was no fight in Afghanistan from the very first day, that terrorism was not in Afghanistan to be found, that they had to go to the [Taliban's] sanctuaries long time back, that they didn't do that and since they cannot do that even today there is no point for them to stay in Afghanistan, so they would like to leave, but stay a residual force behind to continue to provide stability and training to the Afghan forces.
In any case we respect the decision of our partners to leave in bulk, and to provide Afghanistan resources enough to look after itself, and that's a good situation for us all. It's good for the west and our allies, because that spares them a lot of resources and money. It's good for us because, after all, it's our country, and we have to protect it and provide for it. Given the help, we'll be happier and better able to do it.
But they are not leaving with the job done, are they, because there is no security, there is no stability?
Depends on how one defines the job done. As I explained earlier, in the first part of the question, it's either of the two, they feel fulfilled with regard to the objective of fighting terrorism and weakening al-Qaida, or they feel that they were fighting in the wrong place, in the first place, so they should discontinue doing that and leave. We in Afghanistan are not so much into whether they have succeeded or failed, the international forces, we in Afghanistan are more into bringing an end to the three decades of suffering of the Afghan people, in one name or another, for one so-called cause or another. And we want the foreign forces to leave our villages, to leave our towns and homes, we don't want our civilians to face guns any more. But we want a relationship with our allies in a manner that will keep us in their help, and that will also enable us to defend and provide for our country better than we can do on our own, alone.
You want to see the gun removed from Afghan life, but even when the British, when the American, when the coalition troops go, there is little sign at the moment that the Taliban will lay down their weapons. Is there any real hope of reconciliation with the Taliban, is there any hope of a political solution?
Left to Afghan devices, yes. Left to Afghans, with Afghans, yes. Left to an intra-Afghan dialogue between the Taliban and the Afghan peace council, yes. Together with external factors, it's a bit more complicated, and that's the element we are trying to work out.
With Pakistan, for example?
With Pakistan, with the United States, with our other neighbours and the players that we have, the region as a whole.
But the Taliban seem in no mood to have reconciliation talks with you. A lot of the Taliban want to see you dead.
Well, they may want me dead personally, but there are thousands of Taliban and Taliban leaders who are in contact with us, who want to talk to their fellow Afghans, who recognise that that's the only way forward. Now I have heard statements, in the name of the Taliban, that they don't want to talk to the Afghan government or the Afghan high peace council. We don't see those statements as coming from the Taliban per se, we see those statements as having been spoken in the name of the Taliban, but are not factually Taliban statements, we know that.
The Taliban are being used?
In a manner of speaking, yes. The name of the Taliban is used.
But they are still a force to be reckoned with. Do you expect their attacks to grow as British and American coalition troops pull out, that they will increase the pace, the spectaculars that we sometimes see in Kabul?
From the Afghan Taliban no, definitely not. From those Taliban who are Afghans, or inside Afghanistan, who have a motivation against foreign forces for reasons of religion, or other reasons, and those who have been affected by events in Afghanistan, and for its sake have taken up again, the exit of foreign forces will not bring more violence for them to perpetrate against their own people, but a serious, strong, good reduction in violence will occur. But from the external forces acting in the name of the Taliban, we will have to wait and see.
Just to go back to Britain and its legacy in Afghanistan. There was news last week that an agricultural park, which was meant to provide farmers with an alternative to growing poppy, to growing that which would fuel the drug industry, has closed. Britain has put millions into it. It was promised that there would be 4,500 jobs. It's closed. Not a single major infrastructure project has been funded by Britain, even the Kajaki dam, the third turbine, remains unused. You must be very disappointed really with the legacy that Britain will leave behind when its final troops pull out.
Well I'm not aware of a farm, whether there ever was a project on the cards by the British government. But I am aware that the British government was among the first governments that began providing funds directly to the Afghan government, so they have had a contribution to enabling Afghanistan to spend its resources, or the money that is being given to us directly, better, and more accountably. Britain has had that contribution. Britain is establishing a Sandhurst-style school for military training in Kabul, and a lot more that Britain has done, we are thankful for that. Of course, Kajaki dam is not a British project, it's an American project, and it has not happened so far, much to our disappointment. It could have been done had it been given to Afghans to complete.
But Britain's role at this point is highly valued in the pursuit that it has for the peace process in Afghanistan and for bringing Afghanistan and Pakistan together in a close dialogue for improved relations, and towards, hopefully, once the ground is ready and our friends in Pakistan give us that ground, that platform to stand on, for a strategic partnership between Afghanistan and Pakistan to take place. Britain is playing a significant role.
Do you think Pakistan has really had a genuine change of heart about supporting or promoting peace in Afghanistan, because in the past you have been quite critical about their intentions. And as a part of that, we've seen a lot of reports about progress on talking about talks, meeting with the Taliban, but do you think that in the next few months we could see the beginning of actual talks rather than talks about talks?
Yes. We are already, by the way, talking to the Taliban, there is contact between us, significant contact going on, away from international eyes of course. Whether Pakistan has a change of heart, well, Pakistan is suffering in ways a lot more than we in Afghanistan are suffering, there are daily attacks in Pakistan, on Pakistani soldiers, on Pakistani civilians. Schools are closed, I was reading the other day that only in areas close to the Afghan border and around the city of Peshawar, 800 schools were shut or destroyed by the militants, by the Taliban in Pakistan, or in the name of the Taliban in Pakistan. So Pakistan indeed should, or must, find it absolutely necessary for survival, to begin to address the question of extremism and terrorism and to begin to improve relations with Afghanistan, as two sovereign, good neighbourly countries.
Just to follow up on the talks, obviously there have been these contacts about setting up the office, about how talks might begin, but these are the preliminaries to actual peace negotiations of some kind. Do you think those actual talks might start, could we see your government and the Taliban sitting down at a table together to talk about peace within months? Within weeks?
Nothing has really happened so far as talks are concerned between us and the Taliban where the central piece is the Qatar office, the Doha office. From that perspective, not much has happened and we hope something will happen. But other than that, the talks between Afghans, the Afghan-to-Afghan talks, that is going on for quite some time between us and the Taliban. But that will not produce the results that we need, because if it were for us, the Afghans, the Taliban and the rest of Afghans to talk, we would have reached results a long time back. It is the external factors that are important here. And in the Doha talks, in the office for the Taliban in Doha, we are actually thinking more of the external elements there involved in talks with us for a result-oriented negotiation than anything else. So that's the purpose there. In other words, there will not be peace in Afghanistan by having an agreement only between us and the Afghan Taliban. Peace will only come when the external elements involved in creating instability and fighting, or lawlessness in Afghanistan, are involved in talks and have reached agreements with Afghanistan, whether directly with us or somehow through the name of the Taliban.
And what is the likelihood of that?
The likelihood? If I were to say I was very optimistic, it wouldn't be right, but I am a lot better positioned to speak optimistically today than I could, say, a year ago.
Can I ask about British troops in Helmand? You were quoted saying in 2008: "Why do we have Taliban controlling these areas when two years ago I was in control. When Sher Mohammad Akhunzada was governor we had girls in schools and only 160 foreign troops." Do you think the heavy Isaf [International Security Assistance Force] presence that we have seen in Helmand over the last six years has been a positive thing for the people who live there?
Factually, what I said then was true, and it remains to be true today. In 2002 through 2006, Afghanistan had a lot better security. When we had our own presence there, with very little foreign troops, schools were open in Helmand and life was more secure. But I am not going to blame, and it should not be seen as such, I don't want to be interpreted as saying that the arrival of foreign troops brought less security or worsened security for us. Whatever happened is the past, and now we are looking forward to the future.
We appreciate the sacrifices of the British forces and the contributions that they have made, we appreciate the sacrifices of all other foreign forces in Afghanistan, and we also would like our allies in the west to recognise the immense sacrifices of the Afghan people in the last 10 years, the immense loss of life and the suffering that the Afghan people put up with. And from that perspective, from that recognition, we should move forwards towards the peace process and towards the establishment of partnerships as we have now with Britain and others, and to bring success by making it tangible for the Afghan people to see and touch.
But in Helmand and other places, things could have been done so very differently?
I would fully agree with you on that, yes. And indeed in the whole of the country.
Principally what?
Well, money could have been better spent, there could have been a lot less corruption, in Afghanistan. So often in the past many years the Afghan government was blamed for corruption. I knew, not in the beginning, but later as I looked into the question more deeply, I knew that yes, we had corruption in the Afghan government system, in the delivery of services. But that was, in comparison to the corruption coming through the international donor contracts, and the way the money was spent, really insignificant. So money could have been spent better. Money could have been spent on infrastructurally important projects for our economic sustainability, and for a lot more work in Afghanistan.
And militarily things could have been done so very differently. You've been very critical of night raids, of special forces operations in Helmand, in Kandahar?
Absolutely, that was one of the most difficult aspects of our relationship with the United States in particular. Britain, by the way, did a lot better there, listened to us, had much better behaviour, together with Germany. But with the United States we had a serious difficulty with regard to night raids and civilian casualties, which has now improved after much work. I only wish that this could have been done easier and earlier.
The United States has been talking about leaving a residual force in Afghanistan, but they have also said there is the "zero option", a complete pullout, leaving no troops behind at all. You would welcome, wouldn't you, the idea that there would be no foreign troops whatsoever at the end of next year?
Well that's utopian state of mind, and we wish to have that utopian state of mind, that's ideal, no doubt, why wouldn't I, or why wouldn't any citizen of a country, want no troops on our side?
There's a but coming?
There's a but coming, and the but part is that we have been in a process of undermining – rather, seeing the destruction of Afghanistan for the past 30 years, under various garbs, under various slogans, under various circumstances. Afghanistan needs to rebuild itself, to rebuild the times of its youth, to rebuild our human capital, to rebuild our infrastructure, to rebuild state institutions, especially those institutions that will provide protection to the population and defend the country. For that we need the presence of the international community with us, our allies. Now our allies have interests too, and part of those interests are having some force left in Afghanistan, having the use of Afghan facilities, which we recognise also brings much good to Afghanistan. But we like to do this in a manner that will make sure Afghan interests are kept in mind and handled well while we provide the facilities to our friends, and the permit to station some forces in Afghanistan. So it's good for us in short, and I d
on't think there is a zero option. Zero option would be a failure, not success.
The international community spent tens of billions of dollars of aid in Afghanistan, but among my reporting in recent months has been a story about acute malnutrition in southern Afghanistan, children dying of cold in northern Afghanistan. It remains one of the poorest countries in the world. Do you think that money from the west has been well spent? Has there been value both for Afghans and the western citizens who have paid that money in taxes?
The western assistance in Afghanistan on education and health was well spent, largely well spent. The western assistance in Afghanistan on providing us the basics of infrastructure and electricity and water management, and in providing for proper use of our water resources, has not been well spent. Western assistance to Afghanistan in other areas has not been well spent. But the fact that we are a poor country remains to be true, but it would not have changed even if all the money that the west brought to Afghanistan was spent well in our country, we would still have remained a poor country.
The question of malnutrition in children, in all other issues, it's not only a question of lack of economic means, but also lack of overall development – lack of education, our cultural environment, our lack of access to health clinics, difficulty to travel from place to place. So all of those combined gave us this difficulty, money immediately will not relieve you of those problems, but time and well-planned economic activity will relieve you of that problem.
Just following up on the issue of the Taliban's external support. You raised in 2009 the question of reports that mystery helicopters were ferrying the Taliban to northern Afghanistan. Obviously Pakistan doesn't have helicopters inside Afghanistan. Can you talk a little about the kind of support you think the Taliban are getting from beyond Pakistan, and is that still an issue?
Well, we were talking mainly of our neighbours when it comes to large support that the Taliban receive. The question of helicopters inside Afghanistan ferrying Taliban from one place to another will make it a lot more closer to ourselves and our allies, and I don't want to go into that discussion now that there is a process of withdrawal, now that there is talk of transition and strategic partnership.
Can I ask you about an issue that is very sensitive here. Many coalition troops, British and American troops, have been killed recently in so-called insider attacks where their Afghan colleagues have turned on them. What are you, what is your army, doing to try to stop insider attacks?
This is a very important issue and one that unfortunately has happened, and has pained us and pained our allies. We have a responsibility to protect our allies, who are actually guests in our country, so we see this as a serious breach of hospitality, that we are known for in the world, and that we have to improve and make better. So this is an important question, and we are working on it.
In what way? What can you do practically to stop it?
In lots of ways, we should find out the reasons. We know some of the reasons. We try our best to train our troops better, to inform them better, and also there has to be a lot more cultural sensitisation by our allies when they send troops to Afghanistan. Plus much more.
Prince Harry has just left Afghanistan, and when he was there he did interviews in which he spoke of killing Taliban. You may have heard some of the words he used and the way he expressed himself. Do you think the words he used, or the way he expressed himself, do you think Prince Harry spoke rather unwisely?
Well, Prince Charles, the father of Prince Harry, is a very fine gentleman, a man for whom I have tremendous respect. For years, even when I was a student in Simla, I used to read about his dislike of modern architecture and the cement buildings and I entirely agreed with him. Prince Charles is a great representative of Britain and the British ways of life. Prince Harry is a young man, we do give exits to young men when they make mistakes.
Were you upset about how he expressed his days and weeks of service there?
Well, as I said, he's a young man, and young men do make mistakes talking, while behaving, all of us have gone through that period, so let's drop it there.
This is a dangerous moment, a time of transition. Do you fear for your life in the months ahead?
Well, I've had dangers come to me in the past as well, before I was the president, when we were fighting the Soviets, when I was fighting – rather I should say struggling against the Taliban, and since I've been the president. That danger is always there in life. In Afghanistan it's in one way, in the west it's in lots of other ways. Accidents are part of life. So no, I don't feel fear. Danger is there, but I am not afraid of it.
It comes with the job?
It comes with life. Of course, in our case it is a lot closer, but danger is part of life, and part of work. And in our case it's closer to us than perhaps to others.
But in Afghan history, when foreign forces have pulled out, presidents are very vulnerable.
Well it's very different this time. In that sense, no, I don't feel any danger at all, none. I am in my country, and safe and sound.
What is it like being president of Afghanistan for 12 years? I understand you haven't had a holiday in all that time, you're probably the most heavily guarded head of state?
I don't think so, I have seen a lot more protection elsewhere.
How do you manage living with that kind of pressure. Why do you make those sacrifices?
It's my country, we have to build it. Look how long it took you to build Britain to the good country that it is today. Someone did a great work there in the past, someone sacrificed, perhaps millions of people did the hard work for centuries to bring you where you are. Afghanistan needs to do the same. Every citizen of Afghanistan has to work hard. And I, as the president of Afghanistan, have to be at the frontline of that hardship and hard work.
Where do you see Afghanistan in 10 years, not talking about the immediate transition?
Ten years from today Afghanistan will be twice or three times better than what it is today, a better economy, a more educated population, a youth rising in higher standards of education, stronger institutions and a country that's much safer and better off than it is today. Of course it will not be rich by western standards, but it will be more well off than it is today.
And what is the biggest risk that could prevent Afghanistan getting to that point?
The risk is continuation of foreign interference and lack of recognition by Afghans ourselves, the Afghans, to take the opportunity and move forward, that risk in Afghanistan as far as we are concerned is much less. We have recognised our mistakes in the past and we know that a good future lies ahead of us, but we need to work for it, and work hard for it.
And is it true that in your working hard for it, you haven't taken a holiday for 12 years?
It is true that I haven't taken a holiday, yes. I haven't noticed that I haven't taken a holiday. I'll be taking a long holiday a year from now.
You haven't felt any strain from 10 years without a break?
Of course I have felt the strain, of course one needs time off, but it depends on whether one can afford it or not. I feel I cannot afford it, I feel I should continue to work for another year and then take a good leave and recuperate.
After spending $51B, U.S. can't verify size of Afghan security force
Washington Examiner By Paul Bedard Washington Secrets February 4, 2013
The United States has spent over $51 billion to help Afghanistan field, clothe, arm and house a national security force, but the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction Monday said that Washington doesn't even know the size of the Afghan force it's paying for.
And in a shocking statement, the IG, John Sopko, said that the numbers the U.S. is relying on from Afghan officials could be a sham, resulting in billions in waste.
Sopko, whose office is in charge of auditing the near $100 billion taxpayers are funnelling to rebuilding Afghanistan, said, "It looks like our data on the forces, the Afghan National Security Forces, that we are going to be relying on, may be bogus. We don't know what supports it."
His comments at a seminar hosted Monday by Center for Strategic and International Studies heightened concerns in his latest quarterly report on U.S. spending that taxpayers might be getting ripped off.
The report said that the Afghan security force totals 331,592, about 50,000 short of the goal of the combined army and police force. But then it warned that there is "no viable method of validating...personnel numbers."
The blunt-talking Sopko raised other concerns about how U.S. funds are being spent in Afghanistan. For example he noted that the Afghan government doesn't always want facilities the U.S. builds, leaving them nearly empty or unused. And he raised flags over plans by U.S. agencies to spend billions more before U.S. forces leave in late 2014. That, he said, could "waste billions" of dollars.
Sopko said that as troops leave, the areas his auditors will be able to safely go will be limited. His office is already looking to supplement personal audit visits with satellite viewing, but he conceded that the "gold standard" of auditing is "kicking the tires."
Without hands-on audit, he said, "I fear that many of our programs will exposed to increased risk of theft and misuse.
Afghanistan mission a total failure
As our troops leave Oruzgan this year, the province could slide deeper into the abyss.
Sydney Morning Herald By Hugh White Opinion February 5, 2013
This year the Australian Defence Force will pull out of Afghanistan's Oruzgan Province without having achieved the objectives for which it was sent. That means Australia's military operation in Afghanistan has failed. It is important to face this uncomfortable fact and learn from it what we can.
Do not expect this from government, the opposition or the ADF. They will all keep saying our soldiers are coming home because their mission has been successfully achieved. That is simply false and they all know it to be false.
We can understand why they keep claiming success nonetheless. There is the usual reluctance to pay the political price of admitting that any policy has failed. But admitting that this policy has failed is especially hard because it has cost, so far, the lives of 39 Australians, and terrible injuries to many more.
Our military failure in Afghanistan is complex because our reasons for sending forces to Oruzgan have been complex. The simplest reason has been to deny Afghanistan to al-Qaeda, but this never made sense. Al-Qaeda was out of Afghanistan and sprouting elsewhere long before we went to Oruzgan. The more sophisticated reason was to make sure al-Qaeda didn't come back by defeating the Taliban insurgency and fostering a government in Kabul that was effective, stable, just and pro-Western.
Instead, we leave Afghanistan with a deeply corrupt and incompetent government exercising little authority over most of the country and people it is supposed to govern, and no serious prospect that a better government will emerge. Meanwhile, the Taliban seems as strong as ever, and as we withdraw it could soon take back at least a share of the grip on the government in Kabul that it lost in the last weeks of 2001.
There was never any reason to expect a better result. It was always a fantasy that Western military intervention could fundamentally transform Afghanistan's political and social fabric, which is what our objective presupposed.
The fantasy was called Counterinsurgency, or COIN. Its advocates said that our forces could turn Afghanistan into the country we wanted it to be by fanning out among the people, winning their hearts and minds and building support for the regime in Kabul by providing security and aid programs.
The formula has been tried in many places since the Western empires collapsed, and it has always failed, just as it has failed again now. Even 200,000 Western troops were far too few to make it work in Afghanistan, and even three times that number could do nothing to make the government in Kabul look good to the Afghan people.
Yet again, COIN has stumbled on the inherent contradiction that lies at its heart. Any government that is too weak to win a counterinsurgency without massive outside help is too weak to be worth supporting.
After this became clear a few years ago, the Western governments intervening in Afghanistan changed their story again. They stopped saying their aim was to transform the country themselves, and talked instead about training the Afghan army and police so that they could provide the security needed for the Afghans to build their country.
The government was soon telling us that this was now the key mission for Australia's forces in Oruzgan, and also our exit pass. Once the Afghan forces in our province were trained enough to provide security, they argued, the ADF could leave. And this is the job they now say has been done successfully.
This is nonsense. Despite years of hard and dangerous work, the Afghan security forces remain what they have always been: undermotivated, undertrained, underequipped and underfunded. Above all they are woefully led - especially at the higher levels.
And how could it be otherwise? Even if we had succeeded in building strong Afghan forces, what would have been the point when there is no credible government for them to serve and support? The forces we are leaving behind in Oruzgan will do nothing to prevent the province sliding even deeper into the abyss once we are gone
Of course none of these failures are Australia's alone, because we have been part of an American-led coalition. And as many people understand, this is the real reason the government sent our forces to Afghanistan and have kept them there - to support our ally. And the real reason we are leaving is that they are leaving.
But they are leaving not just because they are sick of the war and no longer believe it can be ''won''. They are leaving because they have new strategic priorities - especially in Asia. And here is the final source of our failure in Afghanistan. We sent forces there to bolster our alliance with the US, just as we have been sending them to every American conflict in the Middle East for decades. We did that because when Asia was at peace this was what America expected of us.
But now all that is changing. America no longer cares much what we have done in Afghanistan, because it now sees China as its biggest strategic challenge. Today it judges Australia's worth as an ally by the support we provide it against China - politically as the two giants jockey for influence, and militarily if they come to blows. The depth of our failure in Afghanistan is that our service and sacrifice there has already become irrelevant to the alliance it was supposed to support. Even tougher tests lie ahead.
Hugh White is professor of strategic studies at ANU's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre.
IMF, Afghanistan agree path to fresh aid
AFP February 4, 2013
The IMF said Monday it had reached agreement with Afghanistan on the reform path needed to unlock the next aid installment for the war-ravaged country.
The International Monetary Fund granted Afghanistan a $133.6 million line of credit in November 2011 to help the country through the withdrawal of foreign military forces in 2014.
But to date the IMF has only disbursed two installments of about $18 million each.
Following a two-week mission in Afghanistan, an IMF team reached "understandings" with the Afghan authorities on a reform path to allow fresh aid to be disbursed, the IMF said in a statement.
The disbursement is contingent upon "the implementation of key structural benchmarks for submission of laws to parliament and strengthening banks' capital," the IMF said.
It said the Afghan authorities had agreed on the need to tighten monetary policy, in part to protect the country's international reserves position.
The authorities also saw the need to increase revenues by strengthening customs measures and prepare to implement a value-added tax (VAT) in 2014, the IMF said.
According to the global lender, the Afghan authorities reiterated their commitment to complete "quickly" the winding down of former private bank Kabul Bank, the center of a scandal that had delayed the original IMF loan for a year.
The bank, once Afghanistan's largest, had to be taken over by the central bank in late 2010 amid accusations that powerful former executives siphoned off more than $900 million, some of which was used to buy luxury properties in Dubai.
"The economic outlook for Afghanistan is broadly positive," the IMF said, adding that growth and inflation were better than expected in 2012.
The mission will prepare a report for the IMF executive board "following the implementation of the remaining key structural benchmarks," it said.
The board, which represents the Fund's 188 members, decides approval of aid disbursements.
Prince Harry's combat comments excused by Karzai
BBC News 4 February 2013
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has excused comments made by Prince Harry about fighting Taliban members while serving in Afghanistan.
The prince was accused of "crass" comments about taking Taliban fighters "out of the game".
President Karzai told ITV News and the Guardian: "Young men do make mistakes talking."
Meanwhile, it has been announced the prince will visit Lesotho and South Africa for his charity, Sentebale.
Prince Harry, an Apache helicopter co-pilot gunner, arrived back from his second tour Afghanistan less than two weeks ago, having completed a 20-week deployment.
President Karzai is in the UK for talks with Prime Minister David Cameron and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari aimed at securing closer ties between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
When asked about Prince Harry's comments, the president said: "Well, as I said, he's a young man, and young men do make mistakes talking, while behaving.
"All of us have gone through that period, so let's drop it there.
"Prince Harry is a young man, we do give exits to young men when they make mistakes."
The Stop The War Coalition had branded Prince Harry's comments regarding fighting Taliban insurgents as "crass".
Fundraising drive
Prince Harry will leave at the end of February for the three-day trip to South Africa.
He set up the Sentebale charity to support orphans and vulnerable children in Lesotho.
The 28-year-old last visited Lesotho in 2010 when he took his brother, the Duke of Cambridge, to see Sentebale's work.
His trip will begin with two days of private visits to Sentebale programmes around Lesotho.
On the final day he will carry out public engagements in the Maseru district before attending the Sentebale gala dinner in Johannesburg.
The dinner will mark the launch of the charity's major fundraising drive to build a permanent centre for children and young people.
The Mamohato Centre - named after the mother of Sentebale co-founder Prince Seeiso of Lesotho - will provide psychological care and peer mentoring for children and young people with HIV/Aids.
The prince's commitment to Lesotho - a land-locked country within South Africa - began in 2004 when he spent part of his gap year in the country, working with various charities and organisations.
Sri Lanka not asked by U.S. to send troops to Afghanistan
COLOMBO, Feb. 5 (Xinhua) -- Sri Lanka has not been requested to send troops to add to coalition forces in Afghanistan, the president's spokesman said here on Tuesday, contravening earlier information that Sri Lanka had rejected a U.S. request.
Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa "has neither received nor rejected a request by the U.S. to send Sri Lankan troops to Afghanistan," Presidential Spokesman Mohan Samaranayake told Xinhua.
His clarification came just hours after the Sri Lankan Department of Government Information (DGI) announced on Tuesday morning that President Rajapaksa had rejected a U.S. call to provide troops to the coalition force stationed in Afghanistan.
However, Samaranayake refused to comment on the information released by DGI as it was another government entity.
On Monday, Rajapaksa in his address to the nation to celebrate Sri Lanka's 65th Independence Day took a tough stance against Western criticism on human rights and reconciliation aspects within the island, insisting that the nation's sovereignty should be respected.
The U.S. recently announced that they would table a second resolution on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) sessions to begin on 25 February.
Canada has already declared support for the resolution while Britain and India are as yet undecided.
At present there are over 100,000 coalition troops serving in Afghanistan, out of which around 68, 000 belong to U.S. forces.
US Hopes Troops Remain in Afghanistan: Pentagon
TOLOnews.com Monday, 04 February 2013
US Defence officials on Sunday expressed their hope that US troops remain in Afghanistan after the Nato mission ends in December 2014, although they emphasised that no decision had been made.
US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey made it clear to reporters on Sunday that the US is not leaving Afghanistan in 2014.
"In Chicago [in May], we also said that we're committed to an enduring presence," Panetta said. "And I believe that the president of the United States is going to do everything possible to implement the Chicago agreements."
"No one has ever suggested zero to me," Dempsey said, referring to the number of postwar troops in Afghanistan, although he stressed that "the decision on numbers hasn't been made yet."
He told reporters the US should expect to see "a long-term partnership/relationship" but declined to respond on whether it will be "thousands" of soldiers.
Ahead of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's visit to Washington last month, some White House officials had said that leaving no troops behind remained an option.
Any US troop presence after 2014 requires an agreement between Kabul and Washington.
A similar agreement was sought some years ago in Iraq for the US to leave a training and advising force there, but the talks stumbled on the matter of American troop immunity from Iraq's judicial system.
There are around 66,000 US troops in Afghanistan helping over 300,000 Afghan security forces fight insurgency.
Afghanistan Stops Pakistan Trucks at Torkham Border
TOLOnews.com By Zabihullah Jhanmal Monday, 04 February 2013
Afghan customs officials have stopped more than 600 Pakistani trucks seeking to enter Afghanistan at the Torkham border in what some have labeled a retaliatory move for Pakistan's treatment of Afghan traders in Karachi.
The Ministry of Commerce and Industries said that the trucks are without insurance and bank guarantees which, according to the Afghanistan Pakistan Transit Agreement (APTA), are required for trucks travelling across Afghanistan to Central Asian countries.
Pakistan has not allowed Afghan traders to transit business goods for these reasons, so the Afghan officials said they have decided to impose these rule to Pakistan's trucks.
"We took the decision in reaction to the recent actions of Pakistan," Ministry of Commerce spokesman Wahidullah Ghazikhil told TOLOnews.
Meanwhile, the Afghan traders whose goods have been halted in Pakistan's Karachi port welcomed the government decision.
"We are very happy with this decision," trader Mokammad Hassan Hasam told TOLOnews. "If Pakistan takes money from us for different excuses, our government should also take money from Pakistani traders – it will increase our incomes."
Some Afghan traders say that their foodstuffs have rotted in containers in Karachi port and asked the government to seek compensation from the Pakistan government, or for Pakistan to at least not fine the traders.
"The goods have all rotten in the port and we lost all our capital. At least the government should find a way that they don't fine us or charge us tax," Trader Ahmad Shah said.
Boy and Girl Scouts in Afghanistan?
An Afghan charity has worked to rejuvenate Afghanistan's coed Scouting program. It has 2,000 Scouts and more than 100 Scout leaders spread around the county.
McClatchy Newspapers By Jay Price February 4, 2013
Kabul, Afghanistan - PARSA, the group that got the clothes collected by Maryland Boy Scout John Ferry to the cave dwellers of Bamiyan, has worked to revive Scouting in Afghanistan since 2009.
PARSA is one of the country’s oldest charities, with programs to train teachers and social workers to deal with psychological issues in orphanages and schools, to help women start small businesses and to provide education to women and children who can’t attend traditional schools for various reasons.
It first got involved in Scouting as a way to instill values in older children it was training to help in orphanages, said Keith Blackey, PARSA’s Scouting adviser.
Now it has 2,000 Scouts and more than 100 Scout leaders spread around the county, and it’s emphasizing training more Scout leaders as a way to expand Scouting.
Like most of the 181 countries with Scouting, but unlike the United States, Afghan Scout troops are co-ed, and about 40 percent of the Scouts are girls. Boys wear long pants and a pale green uniform shirt, and girls wear a green uniform tunic over their pants and a pale blue headscarf under their Scout cap. Both wear the usual kind of Scout activity badge, though Afghanistan being what it is, one is for Rule of Law.
Scouting in Afghanistan has a convoluted history. It started in 1931, and by 1977 it boasted 36,000 Scouts. When the Soviets invaded in 1978, they turned the program into one for young communists. When the Taliban took over, they banned Scouting outright.
Now, despite the occasional accusation from a conservative cleric that the Scouts are campfire worshippers, the program is growing so quickly that PARSA recently hired Blackey, a grizzled Vietnam veteran who helped restart the Scouting movement in Iraq. Blackey is the only foreigner in Afghanistan’s Scout program; PARSA is trying to ensure that Scouting is sustainable in Afghanistan, Western help or not.
Scout meetings here are similar to those in the United States, Blackey said, with the same opening routine, and instruction and practice in a skill instruction like first aid or knot tying. Campouts, however, aren’t possible because of the obvious security issues.
“The way to improve this country long term has to be through the children, and I believe Scouting is a tool that can help create leaders,” Blackey said. “If I thought soccer was a tool that could do that, I’d promote soccer, but this is a tool that has worked, and worked well, for 100 years.”
“The goal is to teach them to be leaders in a place where there really aren’t many, and to make them responsible for their own lives and their communities,” he said.
Karzai Issues Decree on Govt Expenses
TOLOnews.com By Haseeb Maudoodi Monday, 04 February 2013
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has issued a decree to control expenses within government departments, requesting they put off purchases of deluxe and expensive equipment and where possible to use domestic products.
"All the ministries and government offices are required to economise the expenses of stationary, oil materials, repairs, and other expenditures, to avoid any unnecessary expense and above-standard per diems for trips out of the country, and to reduce expenses," the decree states.
The use of high-expense items at government departments has been heavily criticised in the past especially because most of these products are mainly funded with budgets from the international community. However it is the first time that the president has so formally addressed it.
Karzai has commanded the Office of the Administrative Affairs, and Secretariat of Council of Ministers to review vehicle purchases at the ministries and other government departments, and also to monitor the implementation of this decree.
It is understood that the decree is focused on economising expenses and to support domestic products, but a number of analysts have doubts about its implementation.
"It's a very nice decree but it's been issued a bit late," Sayed Massoud, economics teacher at Kabul University, said. "However, it will be a good if it is implemented, although I think it will be very hard to implement it under the current conditions. Maybe the commerce [ministry] will stand against it." "The Office of the Administrative Affairs and Secretariat of the Council of Ministers are committed to executing this decree. If someone is proven to be violating our evaluations, there will be no doubt this office will respond in a serious manner," said Rafi Ferdaws, spokesman for Office of the Administrative Affairs, and Secretariat of Council of Ministers.
About half of the $7 billion budget for 1392 (2013-2014) approved by the parliament is funded by the international community- a clear sign of Afghanistan's dependency on donor funds.
Karzai's tougher stance may be triggered by the fear of donor funds reducing as international forces withdraw requiring a reduction in unnecessary costs such as expensive vehicles and furniture.
www.afghanistannewscenter.com
AFP – Tue, Feb 5, 2013 01:43 GMT
The United States has suspended its blacklisting of Kam Air after the Afghan government promised an investigation into claims of opium trafficking by the airline, NATO's coalition force in Afghanistan ISAF announced.
A statement from ISAF said: "The Afghan government has agreed to conduct a full investigation of Kam Air and, if warranted, to take further action."
In return, the US "will support the Afghan government's investigation by providing evidence and documents as required," it said.
The US had banned Afghanistan's largest private airline from its list of potential military contractors, claiming the company on its civilians flights was conveying "bulk" quantities of opium to neighbouring Tajikistan, the Wall Street Journal revealed last week.
The impoverished Central Asian country is regarded as a key transit route used by drug smugglers.
Both the airline and Afghan authorities rejected the allegation. At the end of last month the government demanded proof of drug smuggling from American forces in Afghanistan, which they agreed to do.
ISAF said Monday that Central Command decided to suspend the ban because "it is an appropriate, logical course of action at this time for the sovereign Afghan government to conduct a full investigation of Kam Air."
The US discovered the alleged drug smuggling when it started scrutinising Kam Air after the airline sought a US contract, Richard Longo, the commander of Task Force 2010, a coalition anti-corruption unit, told the WSJ.
Ninety percent of the world's opium is produced is Afghanistan, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
Poppy farmers are taxed by Taliban militants who use the cash to help fund their insurgency against the Kabul government and NATO forces, UNODC said.
Afghan Peace Deal Sought in 6 Months
Leaders From Kabul, Islamabad Set First Timeline to Reach Accord; Taliban Seen Acquiescing to Talks
Wall Street Journal By MARIA ABI-HABIB February 4, 2013
KABUL - Afghan and Pakistani leaders agreed to seek a six-month timeline to reach a peace settlement with the Taliban, the first concrete target set for the long-sputtering reconciliation process.
The deal, made after talks hosted in Britain by Prime Minister David Cameron, is the latest effort in an international push to end the Afghan war.
Monday's talks between Mr. Cameron, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, follow December meetings in France between the Taliban and top Afghan politicians. Those were the first talks conducted by sanctioned representatives of both sides.
The Afghan Taliban's leadership is based in Pakistan, and U.S. and Afghan officials who have fought the insurgents for a decade say it enjoys material support from the Pakistani intelligence establishment.
With U.S.-led international forces preparing to withdraw next year, Western governments are seeking a political compromise with the Taliban to prevent the country from sliding back into civil war.
"All sides agreed on the urgency of this work and committed themselves to take all necessary measures to achieve the goal of a peace settlement over the next six months," the three leaders said in a joint statement.
Taliban spokesmen couldn't be reached when called and emailed for comment.
A major focus of the London meetings was the opening of a Taliban office in Doha, Qatar, which could serve as the base for peace talks with the Afghan government. No timeline has been set for the opening of that office. The Taliban so far refuse to negotiate with Kabul.
Afghan officials said privately that they were expecting the Taliban to soon express their willingness to negotiate with Kabul, a precondition for opening the Doha office. Taliban representatives already are operating out of Doha, and last year engaged in direct negotiations with the U.S.
The statement from talks in Britain appeared aimed at easing Mr. Karzai's fears that he would be cut out of peace process by the U.S., Pakistan or rival politicians. Mr. Karzai, who must step down from his office next year, has insisted reconciliation should be led by a special body that he created, the High Peace Council.
The Doha office, the joint statement said, would be set up "for the purpose of negotiations between the Taliban and the High Peace Council of Afghanistan as part of an Afghan-led peace process."
Kabul wants the Taliban office in Doha to be an "address for peace talks" and not a fundraising or political arm of the insurgency, said Aimal Faizi, Mr. Karzai's spokesman. "Peace [talks] should take months and weeks, not years," Mr. Faizi said in an interview. "If there are no talks, there should be no office."
Although Afghanistan's government has frequently condemned Pakistan for bolstering the insurgency, Afghan officials have been encouraged by recent Pakistani moves on reconciliation.
In November, Pakistan fulfilled Kabul's long-standing request to release from prison several top Taliban leaders with whom Kabul wants to negotiate.
Just before arriving in Britain, Mr. Karzai created a stir by slighting London's contribution to the Afghan war. British troops have paid a heavy price as the main foreign fighting force in southern Helmand province, one of Afghanistan's most dangerous. The U.K. has lost 440 troops in Afghanistan, out of 3,257 coalition deaths, says icasualties.org, an independent monitoring site.
In an interview with the Guardian and ITV News, Mr. Karzai said Helmand was safer before U.K. forces deployed there. "In 2002 through 2006, Afghanistan had a lot better security. When we had our own presence there, with very little foreign troops, schools were open in Helmand and life was more secure," the Afghan president said. "The exit of foreign forces will not bring more violence for them to perpetrate against their own people, but a serious, strong, good reduction in violence will occur."
Asked about Mr. Karzai's comments, Cameron spokesman Jean-Christophe Gray told the Associated Press, "We believe progress is being made. That is why we think the approach that we're taking is the right one." —Ziaulhaq Sultani and Habib Khan Totakhil contributed to this article.
Write to Maria Abi-Habib at maria.habib@dowjones.com
Afghanistan welcome reversing Kam Air from US blacklist
By Sayed Jawad - 05 Feb 2013, 2:16 pm Khaama Press
According to a statement released by office of spokesman and director general of communications of Afghanistan foreign ministry, the Afghan government welcomes the decision by the United States military to return its business relations with Kam Air to normal.
The source further added, This was the right decision to take.
“The Afghan government remains committed to conducting a full investigation into this whole matter, including through the examination of any and all evidence provided by the US military.” the statement added.
The U.S. military has lifted a ban on contracts with an Afghan airline suspected of drug smuggling after the decision to blacklist the carrier sparked anger throughout the Afghan government.
In a statement released late Monday, the military said it had temporarily removed Kam Air from its blacklist pending an investigation into the allegations by the Afghan government. U.S. law prohibits the American government from contracting with companies with ties to enemy forces.
The US had banned Afghanistan’s largest private airline from its list of potential military contractors, claiming the company on its civilians flights was conveying “bulk” quantities of opium to neighbouring Tajikistan, the Wall Street Journal revealed last week.
The United States military does not directly contract with Kam Air, but the lines are somewhat blurry because the military pays for many activities by the Afghan government.
The ban of one of Afghanistan’s largest commercial airlines rankled many inside the Afghan government at a particularly sensitive time in talks for a long-term agreement for U.S. forces in the country.
IMF, Afghanistan Reach 'Understandings' On Reform Path
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty February 5, 2013
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) says it has reached an agreement with Afghan authorities on a series of reforms that need to be implemented so the country can receive its next aid tranche.
The announcement was made following a two-week visit to Afghanistan by an IMF team.
The IMF granted Afghanistan a $133.6 million credit line in November 2011 to assist the country as foreign military forces withdraw during 2014.
The IMF has so far disbursed two installments totaling around $36 million.
An IMF statement said the IMF team had reached "understandings" with Afghan authorities on a reform path.
The initiatives include submission of new laws to parliament, the strengthening of the capital of banks, the strengthening of customs measures, and preparations to implement a value-added tax.
With reporting by AFP
Afghan newspapers looking with pessimism to trilateral summit in London
KABUL, Feb. 5 (Xinhua) -- Local newspapers in Afghanistan are looking with pessimism to the trilateral summit of President Hamid Karzai, his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari and their host, British Prime Minister David Cameron in London to bring Taliban on negotiating table.
In the summit where the peace process in Afghanistan and Kabul- Islamabad relations were discussed, which concluded on Monday, the three leaders announced satisfaction over their talks at a joint press conference in London on Monday.
The government of Afghanistan is struggling to find a way to talk with the Taliban and other insurgent groups over initiation of peace dialogue which ends the bloody chapter of more than a decade of war in the country, the English daily The Afghanistan Express writes in its editorial on Tuesday.
"Afghan, British and Pakistani leaders held a trilateral meeting in London to smooth the way for peace talks with Taliban and to strengthen cooperation on security and other bilateral issues between Afghanistan and Pakistan," it added.
It also added that Presidents Karzai and Zardari have agreed to spare no effort for cutting a peace deal within next six months.
"The six-month timeframe for reaching a deal with Taliban seems to be too wishful, as the Taliban does not seem to be prepared for beginning talks with the government of Afghanistan in next months, " the editorial said.
Another newspaper, the Daily Mandegar in its Tuesday's editorial writes, "the trilateral summit in London would benefit Taliban and Pakistan and not the peace process in Afghanistan."
"Like the past, benefiting from the so-called peace process, more Taliban will be released from Pakistani jail after London summit and Pakistan would continue to support Taliban in future," Daily Mandegar added.
Hasht-e-Subh is another local newspaper which focused on the summit, noting no peace efforts will deliver unless Pakistani military is enough pressed to take necessary action against Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistani soil.
"If Britain wants to play its due role in developing cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan it should exert pressure on Pakistan army to dismantle Taliban safe havens inside Pakistan," the daily Hasht-e-Subh writes in an article published in its Tuesday's edition.
Hamid Karzai interview: full transcript
Transcript of the interview with the Afghan president conducted by the Guardian's Emma Graham-Harrison and the ITV News correspondent Bill Neely
Guardian.co.uk Monday 4 February 2013
Q: President, thank you very much for talking to us, it's an honour for us. British and coalition troops are preparing for a long pullout. It's a time of transition. Transitions are often risky times, dangerous times, and some people are predicting a very dangerous period ahead for Afghanistan. What risks do you think lie ahead for Afghanistan? Is this a dangerous moment?
A: Transition of course has difficulties, of course as far as the abilities of the Afghan state are concerned. We are a newly rebuilding state of all the institutions that any state would need to make it run. That rebuilding has been going on now for 10 years, some with tremendously good success, some relatively all right. In areas where we began late, of course, this progress has to take some more years to come, the stability of institutions would take some more years to come. But that is not our concern, nor am I or the majority of Afghan people concerned about the end state of the transition, we will be fine. The important element for that state of being fine, for stability in Afghanistan, for continued progress in Afghanistan, even of the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan, is the good intention of our neighbours and the well-planned and of course also well-intentioned exit of foreign forces and the staying elements of those foreign forces in Afghanistan in the form of strategic agreements and eventually the – how should I put it? – the continued stay of the United States forces in Afghan facilities. So those elements will determine how stable and strong we are. On our own, as Afghans, we will be good. It's the external factors that will determine the extent of progress and stability or the lack of it.
But it's a period full of risk, the next 18 months?
Indeed, as any other social, political exercise, we will have our difficulties, we will have our challenges, but our challenges, our difficulties will not translate into instability. They will be challenges like we all have in our societies, we must overcome it. I am not concerned about stability. The instability, or difficulty, will be more external than internal to us, and that's what we are working on, that's why we are here in London for the tripartite [meeting with the UK prime minister, David Cameron, and the Pakistani president, Asif Ali Zardari] today and tomorrow.
For years we heard that British, American, coalition troops would pull out when the time was right, when there was stability, when there was security, because not to do so would be a betrayal, would be wrong. And yet troops are pulling out, and there is no, hand on heart, there's no complete security, there's no total stability. This is a strange situation and, again, full of risk.
Well, it depends on the purposes we all have. The international community, led by the United States, came to Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11. And with an objective to fight terrorism, and to secure the west and the United States, by extension, from Afghanistan. Now that they have planned to leave, it is perhaps in the western capitals they have concluded that they are more secure, that terrorism is on defeat, that also in Afghanistan there isn't a terrorism to fight, therefore they are leaving. The other side could be that they have felt that there was no fight in Afghanistan from the very first day, that terrorism was not in Afghanistan to be found, that they had to go to the [Taliban's] sanctuaries long time back, that they didn't do that and since they cannot do that even today there is no point for them to stay in Afghanistan, so they would like to leave, but stay a residual force behind to continue to provide stability and training to the Afghan forces.
In any case we respect the decision of our partners to leave in bulk, and to provide Afghanistan resources enough to look after itself, and that's a good situation for us all. It's good for the west and our allies, because that spares them a lot of resources and money. It's good for us because, after all, it's our country, and we have to protect it and provide for it. Given the help, we'll be happier and better able to do it.
But they are not leaving with the job done, are they, because there is no security, there is no stability?
Depends on how one defines the job done. As I explained earlier, in the first part of the question, it's either of the two, they feel fulfilled with regard to the objective of fighting terrorism and weakening al-Qaida, or they feel that they were fighting in the wrong place, in the first place, so they should discontinue doing that and leave. We in Afghanistan are not so much into whether they have succeeded or failed, the international forces, we in Afghanistan are more into bringing an end to the three decades of suffering of the Afghan people, in one name or another, for one so-called cause or another. And we want the foreign forces to leave our villages, to leave our towns and homes, we don't want our civilians to face guns any more. But we want a relationship with our allies in a manner that will keep us in their help, and that will also enable us to defend and provide for our country better than we can do on our own, alone.
You want to see the gun removed from Afghan life, but even when the British, when the American, when the coalition troops go, there is little sign at the moment that the Taliban will lay down their weapons. Is there any real hope of reconciliation with the Taliban, is there any hope of a political solution?
Left to Afghan devices, yes. Left to Afghans, with Afghans, yes. Left to an intra-Afghan dialogue between the Taliban and the Afghan peace council, yes. Together with external factors, it's a bit more complicated, and that's the element we are trying to work out.
With Pakistan, for example?
With Pakistan, with the United States, with our other neighbours and the players that we have, the region as a whole.
But the Taliban seem in no mood to have reconciliation talks with you. A lot of the Taliban want to see you dead.
Well, they may want me dead personally, but there are thousands of Taliban and Taliban leaders who are in contact with us, who want to talk to their fellow Afghans, who recognise that that's the only way forward. Now I have heard statements, in the name of the Taliban, that they don't want to talk to the Afghan government or the Afghan high peace council. We don't see those statements as coming from the Taliban per se, we see those statements as having been spoken in the name of the Taliban, but are not factually Taliban statements, we know that.
The Taliban are being used?
In a manner of speaking, yes. The name of the Taliban is used.
But they are still a force to be reckoned with. Do you expect their attacks to grow as British and American coalition troops pull out, that they will increase the pace, the spectaculars that we sometimes see in Kabul?
From the Afghan Taliban no, definitely not. From those Taliban who are Afghans, or inside Afghanistan, who have a motivation against foreign forces for reasons of religion, or other reasons, and those who have been affected by events in Afghanistan, and for its sake have taken up again, the exit of foreign forces will not bring more violence for them to perpetrate against their own people, but a serious, strong, good reduction in violence will occur. But from the external forces acting in the name of the Taliban, we will have to wait and see.
Just to go back to Britain and its legacy in Afghanistan. There was news last week that an agricultural park, which was meant to provide farmers with an alternative to growing poppy, to growing that which would fuel the drug industry, has closed. Britain has put millions into it. It was promised that there would be 4,500 jobs. It's closed. Not a single major infrastructure project has been funded by Britain, even the Kajaki dam, the third turbine, remains unused. You must be very disappointed really with the legacy that Britain will leave behind when its final troops pull out.
Well I'm not aware of a farm, whether there ever was a project on the cards by the British government. But I am aware that the British government was among the first governments that began providing funds directly to the Afghan government, so they have had a contribution to enabling Afghanistan to spend its resources, or the money that is being given to us directly, better, and more accountably. Britain has had that contribution. Britain is establishing a Sandhurst-style school for military training in Kabul, and a lot more that Britain has done, we are thankful for that. Of course, Kajaki dam is not a British project, it's an American project, and it has not happened so far, much to our disappointment. It could have been done had it been given to Afghans to complete.
But Britain's role at this point is highly valued in the pursuit that it has for the peace process in Afghanistan and for bringing Afghanistan and Pakistan together in a close dialogue for improved relations, and towards, hopefully, once the ground is ready and our friends in Pakistan give us that ground, that platform to stand on, for a strategic partnership between Afghanistan and Pakistan to take place. Britain is playing a significant role.
Do you think Pakistan has really had a genuine change of heart about supporting or promoting peace in Afghanistan, because in the past you have been quite critical about their intentions. And as a part of that, we've seen a lot of reports about progress on talking about talks, meeting with the Taliban, but do you think that in the next few months we could see the beginning of actual talks rather than talks about talks?
Yes. We are already, by the way, talking to the Taliban, there is contact between us, significant contact going on, away from international eyes of course. Whether Pakistan has a change of heart, well, Pakistan is suffering in ways a lot more than we in Afghanistan are suffering, there are daily attacks in Pakistan, on Pakistani soldiers, on Pakistani civilians. Schools are closed, I was reading the other day that only in areas close to the Afghan border and around the city of Peshawar, 800 schools were shut or destroyed by the militants, by the Taliban in Pakistan, or in the name of the Taliban in Pakistan. So Pakistan indeed should, or must, find it absolutely necessary for survival, to begin to address the question of extremism and terrorism and to begin to improve relations with Afghanistan, as two sovereign, good neighbourly countries.
Just to follow up on the talks, obviously there have been these contacts about setting up the office, about how talks might begin, but these are the preliminaries to actual peace negotiations of some kind. Do you think those actual talks might start, could we see your government and the Taliban sitting down at a table together to talk about peace within months? Within weeks?
Nothing has really happened so far as talks are concerned between us and the Taliban where the central piece is the Qatar office, the Doha office. From that perspective, not much has happened and we hope something will happen. But other than that, the talks between Afghans, the Afghan-to-Afghan talks, that is going on for quite some time between us and the Taliban. But that will not produce the results that we need, because if it were for us, the Afghans, the Taliban and the rest of Afghans to talk, we would have reached results a long time back. It is the external factors that are important here. And in the Doha talks, in the office for the Taliban in Doha, we are actually thinking more of the external elements there involved in talks with us for a result-oriented negotiation than anything else. So that's the purpose there. In other words, there will not be peace in Afghanistan by having an agreement only between us and the Afghan Taliban. Peace will only come when the external elements involved in creating instability and fighting, or lawlessness in Afghanistan, are involved in talks and have reached agreements with Afghanistan, whether directly with us or somehow through the name of the Taliban.
And what is the likelihood of that?
The likelihood? If I were to say I was very optimistic, it wouldn't be right, but I am a lot better positioned to speak optimistically today than I could, say, a year ago.
Can I ask about British troops in Helmand? You were quoted saying in 2008: "Why do we have Taliban controlling these areas when two years ago I was in control. When Sher Mohammad Akhunzada was governor we had girls in schools and only 160 foreign troops." Do you think the heavy Isaf [International Security Assistance Force] presence that we have seen in Helmand over the last six years has been a positive thing for the people who live there?
Factually, what I said then was true, and it remains to be true today. In 2002 through 2006, Afghanistan had a lot better security. When we had our own presence there, with very little foreign troops, schools were open in Helmand and life was more secure. But I am not going to blame, and it should not be seen as such, I don't want to be interpreted as saying that the arrival of foreign troops brought less security or worsened security for us. Whatever happened is the past, and now we are looking forward to the future.
We appreciate the sacrifices of the British forces and the contributions that they have made, we appreciate the sacrifices of all other foreign forces in Afghanistan, and we also would like our allies in the west to recognise the immense sacrifices of the Afghan people in the last 10 years, the immense loss of life and the suffering that the Afghan people put up with. And from that perspective, from that recognition, we should move forwards towards the peace process and towards the establishment of partnerships as we have now with Britain and others, and to bring success by making it tangible for the Afghan people to see and touch.
But in Helmand and other places, things could have been done so very differently?
I would fully agree with you on that, yes. And indeed in the whole of the country.
Principally what?
Well, money could have been better spent, there could have been a lot less corruption, in Afghanistan. So often in the past many years the Afghan government was blamed for corruption. I knew, not in the beginning, but later as I looked into the question more deeply, I knew that yes, we had corruption in the Afghan government system, in the delivery of services. But that was, in comparison to the corruption coming through the international donor contracts, and the way the money was spent, really insignificant. So money could have been spent better. Money could have been spent on infrastructurally important projects for our economic sustainability, and for a lot more work in Afghanistan.
And militarily things could have been done so very differently. You've been very critical of night raids, of special forces operations in Helmand, in Kandahar?
Absolutely, that was one of the most difficult aspects of our relationship with the United States in particular. Britain, by the way, did a lot better there, listened to us, had much better behaviour, together with Germany. But with the United States we had a serious difficulty with regard to night raids and civilian casualties, which has now improved after much work. I only wish that this could have been done easier and earlier.
The United States has been talking about leaving a residual force in Afghanistan, but they have also said there is the "zero option", a complete pullout, leaving no troops behind at all. You would welcome, wouldn't you, the idea that there would be no foreign troops whatsoever at the end of next year?
Well that's utopian state of mind, and we wish to have that utopian state of mind, that's ideal, no doubt, why wouldn't I, or why wouldn't any citizen of a country, want no troops on our side?
There's a but coming?
There's a but coming, and the but part is that we have been in a process of undermining – rather, seeing the destruction of Afghanistan for the past 30 years, under various garbs, under various slogans, under various circumstances. Afghanistan needs to rebuild itself, to rebuild the times of its youth, to rebuild our human capital, to rebuild our infrastructure, to rebuild state institutions, especially those institutions that will provide protection to the population and defend the country. For that we need the presence of the international community with us, our allies. Now our allies have interests too, and part of those interests are having some force left in Afghanistan, having the use of Afghan facilities, which we recognise also brings much good to Afghanistan. But we like to do this in a manner that will make sure Afghan interests are kept in mind and handled well while we provide the facilities to our friends, and the permit to station some forces in Afghanistan. So it's good for us in short, and I d
on't think there is a zero option. Zero option would be a failure, not success.
The international community spent tens of billions of dollars of aid in Afghanistan, but among my reporting in recent months has been a story about acute malnutrition in southern Afghanistan, children dying of cold in northern Afghanistan. It remains one of the poorest countries in the world. Do you think that money from the west has been well spent? Has there been value both for Afghans and the western citizens who have paid that money in taxes?
The western assistance in Afghanistan on education and health was well spent, largely well spent. The western assistance in Afghanistan on providing us the basics of infrastructure and electricity and water management, and in providing for proper use of our water resources, has not been well spent. Western assistance to Afghanistan in other areas has not been well spent. But the fact that we are a poor country remains to be true, but it would not have changed even if all the money that the west brought to Afghanistan was spent well in our country, we would still have remained a poor country.
The question of malnutrition in children, in all other issues, it's not only a question of lack of economic means, but also lack of overall development – lack of education, our cultural environment, our lack of access to health clinics, difficulty to travel from place to place. So all of those combined gave us this difficulty, money immediately will not relieve you of those problems, but time and well-planned economic activity will relieve you of that problem.
Just following up on the issue of the Taliban's external support. You raised in 2009 the question of reports that mystery helicopters were ferrying the Taliban to northern Afghanistan. Obviously Pakistan doesn't have helicopters inside Afghanistan. Can you talk a little about the kind of support you think the Taliban are getting from beyond Pakistan, and is that still an issue?
Well, we were talking mainly of our neighbours when it comes to large support that the Taliban receive. The question of helicopters inside Afghanistan ferrying Taliban from one place to another will make it a lot more closer to ourselves and our allies, and I don't want to go into that discussion now that there is a process of withdrawal, now that there is talk of transition and strategic partnership.
Can I ask you about an issue that is very sensitive here. Many coalition troops, British and American troops, have been killed recently in so-called insider attacks where their Afghan colleagues have turned on them. What are you, what is your army, doing to try to stop insider attacks?
This is a very important issue and one that unfortunately has happened, and has pained us and pained our allies. We have a responsibility to protect our allies, who are actually guests in our country, so we see this as a serious breach of hospitality, that we are known for in the world, and that we have to improve and make better. So this is an important question, and we are working on it.
In what way? What can you do practically to stop it?
In lots of ways, we should find out the reasons. We know some of the reasons. We try our best to train our troops better, to inform them better, and also there has to be a lot more cultural sensitisation by our allies when they send troops to Afghanistan. Plus much more.
Prince Harry has just left Afghanistan, and when he was there he did interviews in which he spoke of killing Taliban. You may have heard some of the words he used and the way he expressed himself. Do you think the words he used, or the way he expressed himself, do you think Prince Harry spoke rather unwisely?
Well, Prince Charles, the father of Prince Harry, is a very fine gentleman, a man for whom I have tremendous respect. For years, even when I was a student in Simla, I used to read about his dislike of modern architecture and the cement buildings and I entirely agreed with him. Prince Charles is a great representative of Britain and the British ways of life. Prince Harry is a young man, we do give exits to young men when they make mistakes.
Were you upset about how he expressed his days and weeks of service there?
Well, as I said, he's a young man, and young men do make mistakes talking, while behaving, all of us have gone through that period, so let's drop it there.
This is a dangerous moment, a time of transition. Do you fear for your life in the months ahead?
Well, I've had dangers come to me in the past as well, before I was the president, when we were fighting the Soviets, when I was fighting – rather I should say struggling against the Taliban, and since I've been the president. That danger is always there in life. In Afghanistan it's in one way, in the west it's in lots of other ways. Accidents are part of life. So no, I don't feel fear. Danger is there, but I am not afraid of it.
It comes with the job?
It comes with life. Of course, in our case it is a lot closer, but danger is part of life, and part of work. And in our case it's closer to us than perhaps to others.
But in Afghan history, when foreign forces have pulled out, presidents are very vulnerable.
Well it's very different this time. In that sense, no, I don't feel any danger at all, none. I am in my country, and safe and sound.
What is it like being president of Afghanistan for 12 years? I understand you haven't had a holiday in all that time, you're probably the most heavily guarded head of state?
I don't think so, I have seen a lot more protection elsewhere.
How do you manage living with that kind of pressure. Why do you make those sacrifices?
It's my country, we have to build it. Look how long it took you to build Britain to the good country that it is today. Someone did a great work there in the past, someone sacrificed, perhaps millions of people did the hard work for centuries to bring you where you are. Afghanistan needs to do the same. Every citizen of Afghanistan has to work hard. And I, as the president of Afghanistan, have to be at the frontline of that hardship and hard work.
Where do you see Afghanistan in 10 years, not talking about the immediate transition?
Ten years from today Afghanistan will be twice or three times better than what it is today, a better economy, a more educated population, a youth rising in higher standards of education, stronger institutions and a country that's much safer and better off than it is today. Of course it will not be rich by western standards, but it will be more well off than it is today.
And what is the biggest risk that could prevent Afghanistan getting to that point?
The risk is continuation of foreign interference and lack of recognition by Afghans ourselves, the Afghans, to take the opportunity and move forward, that risk in Afghanistan as far as we are concerned is much less. We have recognised our mistakes in the past and we know that a good future lies ahead of us, but we need to work for it, and work hard for it.
And is it true that in your working hard for it, you haven't taken a holiday for 12 years?
It is true that I haven't taken a holiday, yes. I haven't noticed that I haven't taken a holiday. I'll be taking a long holiday a year from now.
You haven't felt any strain from 10 years without a break?
Of course I have felt the strain, of course one needs time off, but it depends on whether one can afford it or not. I feel I cannot afford it, I feel I should continue to work for another year and then take a good leave and recuperate.
After spending $51B, U.S. can't verify size of Afghan security force
Washington Examiner By Paul Bedard Washington Secrets February 4, 2013
The United States has spent over $51 billion to help Afghanistan field, clothe, arm and house a national security force, but the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction Monday said that Washington doesn't even know the size of the Afghan force it's paying for.
And in a shocking statement, the IG, John Sopko, said that the numbers the U.S. is relying on from Afghan officials could be a sham, resulting in billions in waste.
Sopko, whose office is in charge of auditing the near $100 billion taxpayers are funnelling to rebuilding Afghanistan, said, "It looks like our data on the forces, the Afghan National Security Forces, that we are going to be relying on, may be bogus. We don't know what supports it."
His comments at a seminar hosted Monday by Center for Strategic and International Studies heightened concerns in his latest quarterly report on U.S. spending that taxpayers might be getting ripped off.
The report said that the Afghan security force totals 331,592, about 50,000 short of the goal of the combined army and police force. But then it warned that there is "no viable method of validating...personnel numbers."
The blunt-talking Sopko raised other concerns about how U.S. funds are being spent in Afghanistan. For example he noted that the Afghan government doesn't always want facilities the U.S. builds, leaving them nearly empty or unused. And he raised flags over plans by U.S. agencies to spend billions more before U.S. forces leave in late 2014. That, he said, could "waste billions" of dollars.
Sopko said that as troops leave, the areas his auditors will be able to safely go will be limited. His office is already looking to supplement personal audit visits with satellite viewing, but he conceded that the "gold standard" of auditing is "kicking the tires."
Without hands-on audit, he said, "I fear that many of our programs will exposed to increased risk of theft and misuse.
Afghanistan mission a total failure
As our troops leave Oruzgan this year, the province could slide deeper into the abyss.
Sydney Morning Herald By Hugh White Opinion February 5, 2013
This year the Australian Defence Force will pull out of Afghanistan's Oruzgan Province without having achieved the objectives for which it was sent. That means Australia's military operation in Afghanistan has failed. It is important to face this uncomfortable fact and learn from it what we can.
Do not expect this from government, the opposition or the ADF. They will all keep saying our soldiers are coming home because their mission has been successfully achieved. That is simply false and they all know it to be false.
We can understand why they keep claiming success nonetheless. There is the usual reluctance to pay the political price of admitting that any policy has failed. But admitting that this policy has failed is especially hard because it has cost, so far, the lives of 39 Australians, and terrible injuries to many more.
Our military failure in Afghanistan is complex because our reasons for sending forces to Oruzgan have been complex. The simplest reason has been to deny Afghanistan to al-Qaeda, but this never made sense. Al-Qaeda was out of Afghanistan and sprouting elsewhere long before we went to Oruzgan. The more sophisticated reason was to make sure al-Qaeda didn't come back by defeating the Taliban insurgency and fostering a government in Kabul that was effective, stable, just and pro-Western.
Instead, we leave Afghanistan with a deeply corrupt and incompetent government exercising little authority over most of the country and people it is supposed to govern, and no serious prospect that a better government will emerge. Meanwhile, the Taliban seems as strong as ever, and as we withdraw it could soon take back at least a share of the grip on the government in Kabul that it lost in the last weeks of 2001.
There was never any reason to expect a better result. It was always a fantasy that Western military intervention could fundamentally transform Afghanistan's political and social fabric, which is what our objective presupposed.
The fantasy was called Counterinsurgency, or COIN. Its advocates said that our forces could turn Afghanistan into the country we wanted it to be by fanning out among the people, winning their hearts and minds and building support for the regime in Kabul by providing security and aid programs.
The formula has been tried in many places since the Western empires collapsed, and it has always failed, just as it has failed again now. Even 200,000 Western troops were far too few to make it work in Afghanistan, and even three times that number could do nothing to make the government in Kabul look good to the Afghan people.
Yet again, COIN has stumbled on the inherent contradiction that lies at its heart. Any government that is too weak to win a counterinsurgency without massive outside help is too weak to be worth supporting.
After this became clear a few years ago, the Western governments intervening in Afghanistan changed their story again. They stopped saying their aim was to transform the country themselves, and talked instead about training the Afghan army and police so that they could provide the security needed for the Afghans to build their country.
The government was soon telling us that this was now the key mission for Australia's forces in Oruzgan, and also our exit pass. Once the Afghan forces in our province were trained enough to provide security, they argued, the ADF could leave. And this is the job they now say has been done successfully.
This is nonsense. Despite years of hard and dangerous work, the Afghan security forces remain what they have always been: undermotivated, undertrained, underequipped and underfunded. Above all they are woefully led - especially at the higher levels.
And how could it be otherwise? Even if we had succeeded in building strong Afghan forces, what would have been the point when there is no credible government for them to serve and support? The forces we are leaving behind in Oruzgan will do nothing to prevent the province sliding even deeper into the abyss once we are gone
Of course none of these failures are Australia's alone, because we have been part of an American-led coalition. And as many people understand, this is the real reason the government sent our forces to Afghanistan and have kept them there - to support our ally. And the real reason we are leaving is that they are leaving.
But they are leaving not just because they are sick of the war and no longer believe it can be ''won''. They are leaving because they have new strategic priorities - especially in Asia. And here is the final source of our failure in Afghanistan. We sent forces there to bolster our alliance with the US, just as we have been sending them to every American conflict in the Middle East for decades. We did that because when Asia was at peace this was what America expected of us.
But now all that is changing. America no longer cares much what we have done in Afghanistan, because it now sees China as its biggest strategic challenge. Today it judges Australia's worth as an ally by the support we provide it against China - politically as the two giants jockey for influence, and militarily if they come to blows. The depth of our failure in Afghanistan is that our service and sacrifice there has already become irrelevant to the alliance it was supposed to support. Even tougher tests lie ahead.
Hugh White is professor of strategic studies at ANU's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre.
IMF, Afghanistan agree path to fresh aid
AFP February 4, 2013
The IMF said Monday it had reached agreement with Afghanistan on the reform path needed to unlock the next aid installment for the war-ravaged country.
The International Monetary Fund granted Afghanistan a $133.6 million line of credit in November 2011 to help the country through the withdrawal of foreign military forces in 2014.
But to date the IMF has only disbursed two installments of about $18 million each.
Following a two-week mission in Afghanistan, an IMF team reached "understandings" with the Afghan authorities on a reform path to allow fresh aid to be disbursed, the IMF said in a statement.
The disbursement is contingent upon "the implementation of key structural benchmarks for submission of laws to parliament and strengthening banks' capital," the IMF said.
It said the Afghan authorities had agreed on the need to tighten monetary policy, in part to protect the country's international reserves position.
The authorities also saw the need to increase revenues by strengthening customs measures and prepare to implement a value-added tax (VAT) in 2014, the IMF said.
According to the global lender, the Afghan authorities reiterated their commitment to complete "quickly" the winding down of former private bank Kabul Bank, the center of a scandal that had delayed the original IMF loan for a year.
The bank, once Afghanistan's largest, had to be taken over by the central bank in late 2010 amid accusations that powerful former executives siphoned off more than $900 million, some of which was used to buy luxury properties in Dubai.
"The economic outlook for Afghanistan is broadly positive," the IMF said, adding that growth and inflation were better than expected in 2012.
The mission will prepare a report for the IMF executive board "following the implementation of the remaining key structural benchmarks," it said.
The board, which represents the Fund's 188 members, decides approval of aid disbursements.
Prince Harry's combat comments excused by Karzai
BBC News 4 February 2013
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has excused comments made by Prince Harry about fighting Taliban members while serving in Afghanistan.
The prince was accused of "crass" comments about taking Taliban fighters "out of the game".
President Karzai told ITV News and the Guardian: "Young men do make mistakes talking."
Meanwhile, it has been announced the prince will visit Lesotho and South Africa for his charity, Sentebale.
Prince Harry, an Apache helicopter co-pilot gunner, arrived back from his second tour Afghanistan less than two weeks ago, having completed a 20-week deployment.
President Karzai is in the UK for talks with Prime Minister David Cameron and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari aimed at securing closer ties between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
When asked about Prince Harry's comments, the president said: "Well, as I said, he's a young man, and young men do make mistakes talking, while behaving.
"All of us have gone through that period, so let's drop it there.
"Prince Harry is a young man, we do give exits to young men when they make mistakes."
The Stop The War Coalition had branded Prince Harry's comments regarding fighting Taliban insurgents as "crass".
Fundraising drive
Prince Harry will leave at the end of February for the three-day trip to South Africa.
He set up the Sentebale charity to support orphans and vulnerable children in Lesotho.
The 28-year-old last visited Lesotho in 2010 when he took his brother, the Duke of Cambridge, to see Sentebale's work.
His trip will begin with two days of private visits to Sentebale programmes around Lesotho.
On the final day he will carry out public engagements in the Maseru district before attending the Sentebale gala dinner in Johannesburg.
The dinner will mark the launch of the charity's major fundraising drive to build a permanent centre for children and young people.
The Mamohato Centre - named after the mother of Sentebale co-founder Prince Seeiso of Lesotho - will provide psychological care and peer mentoring for children and young people with HIV/Aids.
The prince's commitment to Lesotho - a land-locked country within South Africa - began in 2004 when he spent part of his gap year in the country, working with various charities and organisations.
Sri Lanka not asked by U.S. to send troops to Afghanistan
COLOMBO, Feb. 5 (Xinhua) -- Sri Lanka has not been requested to send troops to add to coalition forces in Afghanistan, the president's spokesman said here on Tuesday, contravening earlier information that Sri Lanka had rejected a U.S. request.
Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa "has neither received nor rejected a request by the U.S. to send Sri Lankan troops to Afghanistan," Presidential Spokesman Mohan Samaranayake told Xinhua.
His clarification came just hours after the Sri Lankan Department of Government Information (DGI) announced on Tuesday morning that President Rajapaksa had rejected a U.S. call to provide troops to the coalition force stationed in Afghanistan.
However, Samaranayake refused to comment on the information released by DGI as it was another government entity.
On Monday, Rajapaksa in his address to the nation to celebrate Sri Lanka's 65th Independence Day took a tough stance against Western criticism on human rights and reconciliation aspects within the island, insisting that the nation's sovereignty should be respected.
The U.S. recently announced that they would table a second resolution on Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) sessions to begin on 25 February.
Canada has already declared support for the resolution while Britain and India are as yet undecided.
At present there are over 100,000 coalition troops serving in Afghanistan, out of which around 68, 000 belong to U.S. forces.
US Hopes Troops Remain in Afghanistan: Pentagon
TOLOnews.com Monday, 04 February 2013
US Defence officials on Sunday expressed their hope that US troops remain in Afghanistan after the Nato mission ends in December 2014, although they emphasised that no decision had been made.
US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey made it clear to reporters on Sunday that the US is not leaving Afghanistan in 2014.
"In Chicago [in May], we also said that we're committed to an enduring presence," Panetta said. "And I believe that the president of the United States is going to do everything possible to implement the Chicago agreements."
"No one has ever suggested zero to me," Dempsey said, referring to the number of postwar troops in Afghanistan, although he stressed that "the decision on numbers hasn't been made yet."
He told reporters the US should expect to see "a long-term partnership/relationship" but declined to respond on whether it will be "thousands" of soldiers.
Ahead of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's visit to Washington last month, some White House officials had said that leaving no troops behind remained an option.
Any US troop presence after 2014 requires an agreement between Kabul and Washington.
A similar agreement was sought some years ago in Iraq for the US to leave a training and advising force there, but the talks stumbled on the matter of American troop immunity from Iraq's judicial system.
There are around 66,000 US troops in Afghanistan helping over 300,000 Afghan security forces fight insurgency.
Afghanistan Stops Pakistan Trucks at Torkham Border
TOLOnews.com By Zabihullah Jhanmal Monday, 04 February 2013
Afghan customs officials have stopped more than 600 Pakistani trucks seeking to enter Afghanistan at the Torkham border in what some have labeled a retaliatory move for Pakistan's treatment of Afghan traders in Karachi.
The Ministry of Commerce and Industries said that the trucks are without insurance and bank guarantees which, according to the Afghanistan Pakistan Transit Agreement (APTA), are required for trucks travelling across Afghanistan to Central Asian countries.
Pakistan has not allowed Afghan traders to transit business goods for these reasons, so the Afghan officials said they have decided to impose these rule to Pakistan's trucks.
"We took the decision in reaction to the recent actions of Pakistan," Ministry of Commerce spokesman Wahidullah Ghazikhil told TOLOnews.
Meanwhile, the Afghan traders whose goods have been halted in Pakistan's Karachi port welcomed the government decision.
"We are very happy with this decision," trader Mokammad Hassan Hasam told TOLOnews. "If Pakistan takes money from us for different excuses, our government should also take money from Pakistani traders – it will increase our incomes."
Some Afghan traders say that their foodstuffs have rotted in containers in Karachi port and asked the government to seek compensation from the Pakistan government, or for Pakistan to at least not fine the traders.
"The goods have all rotten in the port and we lost all our capital. At least the government should find a way that they don't fine us or charge us tax," Trader Ahmad Shah said.
Boy and Girl Scouts in Afghanistan?
An Afghan charity has worked to rejuvenate Afghanistan's coed Scouting program. It has 2,000 Scouts and more than 100 Scout leaders spread around the county.
McClatchy Newspapers By Jay Price February 4, 2013
Kabul, Afghanistan - PARSA, the group that got the clothes collected by Maryland Boy Scout John Ferry to the cave dwellers of Bamiyan, has worked to revive Scouting in Afghanistan since 2009.
PARSA is one of the country’s oldest charities, with programs to train teachers and social workers to deal with psychological issues in orphanages and schools, to help women start small businesses and to provide education to women and children who can’t attend traditional schools for various reasons.
It first got involved in Scouting as a way to instill values in older children it was training to help in orphanages, said Keith Blackey, PARSA’s Scouting adviser.
Now it has 2,000 Scouts and more than 100 Scout leaders spread around the county, and it’s emphasizing training more Scout leaders as a way to expand Scouting.
Like most of the 181 countries with Scouting, but unlike the United States, Afghan Scout troops are co-ed, and about 40 percent of the Scouts are girls. Boys wear long pants and a pale green uniform shirt, and girls wear a green uniform tunic over their pants and a pale blue headscarf under their Scout cap. Both wear the usual kind of Scout activity badge, though Afghanistan being what it is, one is for Rule of Law.
Scouting in Afghanistan has a convoluted history. It started in 1931, and by 1977 it boasted 36,000 Scouts. When the Soviets invaded in 1978, they turned the program into one for young communists. When the Taliban took over, they banned Scouting outright.
Now, despite the occasional accusation from a conservative cleric that the Scouts are campfire worshippers, the program is growing so quickly that PARSA recently hired Blackey, a grizzled Vietnam veteran who helped restart the Scouting movement in Iraq. Blackey is the only foreigner in Afghanistan’s Scout program; PARSA is trying to ensure that Scouting is sustainable in Afghanistan, Western help or not.
Scout meetings here are similar to those in the United States, Blackey said, with the same opening routine, and instruction and practice in a skill instruction like first aid or knot tying. Campouts, however, aren’t possible because of the obvious security issues.
“The way to improve this country long term has to be through the children, and I believe Scouting is a tool that can help create leaders,” Blackey said. “If I thought soccer was a tool that could do that, I’d promote soccer, but this is a tool that has worked, and worked well, for 100 years.”
“The goal is to teach them to be leaders in a place where there really aren’t many, and to make them responsible for their own lives and their communities,” he said.
Karzai Issues Decree on Govt Expenses
TOLOnews.com By Haseeb Maudoodi Monday, 04 February 2013
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has issued a decree to control expenses within government departments, requesting they put off purchases of deluxe and expensive equipment and where possible to use domestic products.
"All the ministries and government offices are required to economise the expenses of stationary, oil materials, repairs, and other expenditures, to avoid any unnecessary expense and above-standard per diems for trips out of the country, and to reduce expenses," the decree states.
The use of high-expense items at government departments has been heavily criticised in the past especially because most of these products are mainly funded with budgets from the international community. However it is the first time that the president has so formally addressed it.
Karzai has commanded the Office of the Administrative Affairs, and Secretariat of Council of Ministers to review vehicle purchases at the ministries and other government departments, and also to monitor the implementation of this decree.
It is understood that the decree is focused on economising expenses and to support domestic products, but a number of analysts have doubts about its implementation.
"It's a very nice decree but it's been issued a bit late," Sayed Massoud, economics teacher at Kabul University, said. "However, it will be a good if it is implemented, although I think it will be very hard to implement it under the current conditions. Maybe the commerce [ministry] will stand against it." "The Office of the Administrative Affairs and Secretariat of the Council of Ministers are committed to executing this decree. If someone is proven to be violating our evaluations, there will be no doubt this office will respond in a serious manner," said Rafi Ferdaws, spokesman for Office of the Administrative Affairs, and Secretariat of Council of Ministers.
About half of the $7 billion budget for 1392 (2013-2014) approved by the parliament is funded by the international community- a clear sign of Afghanistan's dependency on donor funds.
Karzai's tougher stance may be triggered by the fear of donor funds reducing as international forces withdraw requiring a reduction in unnecessary costs such as expensive vehicles and furniture.
www.afghanistannewscenter.com