Tweet
Afghanistan's biggest-ever truck bomb defused in Kabul: spy agency
By Mirwais Harooni | Reuters – Fri, Mar 15, 2013.
KABUL (Reuters) - Security forces in the Afghan capital have defused a truck bomb packed with nearly eight tonnes of explosives, the biggest of its kind discovered in the country, the spy agency said on Friday amid heightened security.
Intelligence forces discovered the explosives in eastern Kabul, wired and ready for detonation, security officials said. Five al-Qaeda linked Haqqani network insurgents were killed in a resulting firefight.
"This truck bomb could have destroyed an area around 1.5 km (in radius). Now can you imagine that what kind of catastrophe this would be?," Shafiqullah Tahiri, a spokesman for the National Directorate of Security, told a news conference.
It contained sodium chloride, ammonium nitrate, other chemicals and some diesel.
After more than 11 years of war, insurgents are still able to strike strategic military targets and launch high-profile attacks in Kabul and elsewhere.
The truck bomb was discovered on Wednesday two days after U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel left the capital. On the first full day of Hagel's visit, a suicide bomber struck about a kilometer away from his morning meetings at a NATO facility.
Two Haqqani operatives were arrested during the night raid, and Tahiri said the militants had been planning to target a military facility in the capital. There are several foreign and Afghan military bases in Kabul, housing thousands of soldiers.
The Haqqani network is widely regarded as the most dangerous U.S. foe in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is bracing for the start of the spring fighting season, and officials fear that militants will infiltrate the capital as the snow melts in the mountains to the east where they hide.
A number of insurgent groups, including the Taliban, the Haqqani network and Hizb-i-Islami, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, are known to reside in restive Wardak province just 40 minutes drive from Kabul.
Afghan officials told Reuters this week they were worried that the Afghan capital would be in danger after President Hamid Karzai ordered U.S. special forces tasked with fighting the Taliban to leave Wardak.
U.S. special forces are expected to play a major role after most NATO combat troops withdraw by the end of 2014, and Karzai's decision could complicate negotiations between the United States and Afghanistan over the scope of U.S. operations after the pull-out.
International forces in Afghanistan have also been warned the that recent inflammatory remarks by Karzai have put them at risk, NATO commander General Joseph Dunford said in an email obtained by the New York Times this week.
Karzai accused the United States of colluding with the Taliban hours before the two met last Sunday. His remarks, which have been rejected by Washington, highlight an often tense relationship with the United States.
(Writing by Jeremy Laurence; Editing by Nick Macfie)
Afghan forces kill 1 militant, detain 10
FAIZABAD, Afghanistan, March 15 (Xinhua) -- Afghan security forces launched a cleanup operation in Badakhshan province 315 km northeast of Kabul on Thursday to evict Taliban militants from their hideouts, a spokesman said Friday.
"During the operation which covered Wardoj and Jerm districts so far one Taliban rebel has been killed and 10 others have been arrested," spokesman for provincial administration Abdul Marouf Rasikh told Xinhua.
He also said that the operation will continue till the anti- government militants are killed or surrender.
The operation is taking place in the wake of killing 16 Afghan soldiers by Taliban militants in Wardoj district early this month.
A relatively peaceful province, Badakhshan has been the scene of Taliban-linked militancy since early this year.
Is Obama to blame for the mess in Afghanistan?
A new book by an administration insider argues a “dithering” White House has led to key missteps in Afghanistan and a loss of American power in the world.
Global Post By Jean MacKenzie March 14, 2013
BUZZARDS BAY, Mass. - As the recent fracas in Afghanistan amply demonstrates, the picture is not at all rosy with regards to the United States’ longest-running war.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai's public rebuke of his US allies during the first visit of the newly confirmed defense secretary to Kabul has sparked renewed debate in Washington about the wisdom of continuing the drawn-out, and what many call fruitless, effort.
What is less clear is who is responsible for the dismal course of events. There are certainly many worthy targets for finger-pointing: allegedly corrupt and incompetent Afghan officials; intransigent Taliban insurgents; insufficiently committed international actors; US policymakers who failed to identify clear and realistic goals.
But a new book by an insider from Barack Obama's administration pins the blame squarely on the US president, and what it describes as his lack of experience, need for control, and inability to stand up to his military advisers that make any sort of rational solution to the conflict all but impossible.
“The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat,” by renowned international affairs expert Vali Nasr, will be released next month. A lengthy excerpt published in Foreign Policy magazine last week is already causing a stir.
President Obama came into office in 2009 with the promise of a “new beginning” in America’s approach to the world, an end to the militarized foreign policy of the Bush years, and a pledge to the nations of the world that “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
It was heady talk, and many were caught up in the “hope and change” dynamic.
But, as Nasr points out, there was, and remains, an immense gulf between rhetoric and reality.
Nasr, dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, served in the first Obama administration for two years as an assistant to Richard Holbrooke, special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Holbrooke was known for collecting the best and the brightest around him, and he courted Nasr, then a tenured professor at Tufts University, with his customary panache.
”If you want to change things, you have to get involved. If you want your voice to be heard, then get inside," he told an initially reluctant Nasr. Besides, he added, ”if you work for anyone else, I will break your knees.”
But life as an insider was not what Nasr expected.
"My time in the Obama administration turned out to be a deeply disillusioning experience," he writes.
Nasr tells of a White House that “jealously guarded all foreign policymaking,” ignoring the experts while gauging all actions exclusively on their ability to sway public opinion.
“The president had a truly disturbing habit of funneling major foreign policy decisions through a small cabal of relatively inexperienced White House advisers whose turf was strictly politics,” writes Nasr. “Their primary concern was how any action in Afghanistan or the Middle East would play on the nightly news, or which talking point it would give the Republicans.”
During his first campaign, Obama had called Afghanistan the “good war” and promised to do all he could to build a strong democratic state in Afghanistan capable of standing up to terrorism.
But once in office, Obama proved incapable of taking concrete action, according to the former adviser. Instead, he engaged in what Nasr calls “the Obama administration's first AfPak disaster: the torturously long 2009 strategic review.”
All through Obama’s first year as president, the debate raged over what to do in Afghanistan, as it became increasingly obvious that the US was losing the war.
The military was pushing for a surge, while the diplomats insisted that negotiations were the only way forward.
“The Taliban were ready for talks as early as April 2009,” writes Nasr, detailing the findings of prominent Afghanistan scholar Barnett Rubin, who had met with senior Taliban officials early in 2009.
Rubin, who was shortly to join Holbrooke’s team as his senior Afghan-affairs adviser, conferred in Kabul with former Taliban commander Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, “who laid out in detail a strategy for talks: where to start, what to discuss, and the shape of the settlement that the United States and the Taliban could agree on.”
Rubin wrote a memo on his trip for Holbrooke, who read it and remarked, “If this thing works, it may be the only way we will get out.”
But the White House, deferring to the military, was not ready to talk to the Taliban. While other NATO powers, particularly the United Kingdom, pushed for negotiations, Washington stood firmly opposed.
“The White House did not want to try anything as audacious as diplomacy,” writes Nasr.
The strategic review consumed hundreds of hours to little effect. The White House kept calling for more and more reports, and conducting more and more meetings.
“Obama was dithering,” writes Nasr. “He was busybodying the national security apparatus by asking for more answers to the same set of questions, each time posed differently.”
Obama was afraid that standing against the Pentagon would make him look weak, says Nasr, and ultimately agreed to send more troops.
But even here, the president could not commit. In his speech at West Point on Dec. 1, 2009, Obama announced a “surge” of 30,000 troops, but in the same address he also promised that a drawdown would begin in July 2011.
This, argues Nasr, was one of the worst mistakes of Obama’s entire Afghan policy. By announcing the surge was a temporary phenomenon, he ended up undercutting any leverage he might have had to nudge the Taliban into productive talks.
“If you are leaving, why would the Taliban make a deal with you? How would you make the deal stick?” he asks.
But, as Nasr points out, the decision had less to do with strategic priorities than with politics.
Bob Woodward, in “Obama’s Wars,” his 2010 investigation of the internecine struggles that dominated Obama’s first year in office, recounts an interchange between the president and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, the day after the West Point speech.
Graham was troubled by the announced withdrawal, and was looking for assurance that it was not set in stone.
The president, however, was adamant.
“We’re going to start leaving,” said Obama. “I have to say that. I can’t let this be a war without end, and I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”
“You’re right,” replied Graham. “But the enemy is listening too.”
In dispute
Nasr’s views will certainly be unwelcome to the White House.
Benjamin Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser in the Obama administration, is already disputing Nasr’s interpretation of events.
Setting a withdrawal date from Afghanistan was essential to signal that the American commitment was not open-ended, Rhodes told The New York Times. The administration wanted to send a message to the Afghans that it was time to step up.
Nasr’s account has drawn ire from other Afghanistan experts as well. Sarah Chayes, former journalist who also served as special adviser on Afghanistan to two International Security Assistance Force commanders as well as to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took on Nasr’s analysis in her own piece in Foreign Policy magazine this week.
Chayes herself has been an outspoken critic of US policy in Afghanistan, and her 2007 book, “The Punishment of Virtue,” does not mince words on what she sees as the often startling lack of understanding the military displayed in dealing with Afghanistan.
She also does not dispute Nasr’s basic premise, that Obama failed to push hard enough for the right options because he was too focused on the American electorate.
“Far be it from me to deny that the Obama White House may have exercised an excessive or insular grip on foreign policy, linking it too closely to domestic electoral considerations,” she writes.
But Chayes disagrees with Nasr’s contention that negotiations with the Taliban were the best, or the only, way out, and thinks that he does not sufficiently take Pakistan’s negative role into consideration.
“Nasr's prescription for negotiating with the Taliban neglects the militants' intensive, if often fraught, ties to Pakistan's all-powerful military intelligence agency, the ISI,” she says. “Nasr writes of negotiations as though the United States would be engaging with an autonomous Afghan entity, not the heavily influenced Pakistani proxy most Taliban leaders constitute."
Chayes finds that “Nasr's recipes are startlingly simplistic,” and wishes he displayed the “humility and intellectual honesty to take a candid look inward, to strive for a nuanced assessment of our shared missteps, in what I, like Nasr, believe will be a grim outcome for Afghanistan, and ultimately for international security.”
Perhaps there is still more blame to be assigned. But nothing in Chayes’ sometimes scathing response to Nasr mitigates his main argument: the administration’s drift in foreign policy has considerably damaged America’s standing in the world.
“[Obama’s] actions from start to finish were guided by politics, and they played well at home,” he writes. “Abroad, however, the stories the United States tells to justify its on-again, off-again approach do not ring true to friend or foe.”
The world, says Nasr, is not buying America’s vision of itself as “the indispensible nation,” and is looking less and less to Washington for leadership.
“Everyone,” he says, is “getting used to a directionless America.”
Jean MacKenzie worked as a reporter in Afghanistan from October 2004 to December 2011, first as the head of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, then as a senior corespondent for GlobalPost.
US refuse to transfer high-risk prisoners to Afghan control
By GHANIZADA - 15 Mar 2013, 6:32 pm Khaama Press
Dispute between Kabul and Washington over the fate of about three dozen militants held by US forces in Afghanistan has disrupted negotiations over a long-term security agreement between the two nations, Washington Post reported.
The prisoners deemed especially dangerous as compared with the more than 3,000 which have already been transferred to Afghan control is said to be the main reason behind United States decision to refuse the turn over of the prisoners.
US officials have denied the hand over of the prisoners unless president Hamid Karzai guarantees they not be released.
This comes as tensions between Kabul and Washington mounted during the recent days after president Hamid Karzai accused United States of braking an agreement on the transfer and criticized Washington for colluding with the Taliban group.
Karzai’s remarks put international coalition security forces after US commander in Afghanistan Gen. Joseph F. Dunord Jr., order American troops to intensify security measures.
However the Obama administration considers the detainee problem a short-term disagreement unrelated to the strategic negotiations on Afghanistan’s future security.
But officials in president Karzai’s office warned that lack of trust that the United States has exhibited over the prisoners and other matters “certainly will have a negative impact on the bilateral security agreement.”
Dispute over high-risk prisoners threatens to disrupt U.S.-Afghan talks
Washington Post By Karen DeYoung and Kevin Sieff Friday, March 15, 2013
A dispute over the fate of about three dozen militants held by U.S. forces in Afghanistan has disrupted negotiations over a long-term security agreement to leave U.S. troops in the country after 2014.
The United States has refused to turn over the prisoners — deemed especially dangerous compared with more than 3,000 already transferred to Afghan control — unless President Hamid Karzai guarantees they will not be released. He has so far declined.
As tensions have risen in recent days, Karzai has accused the United States of breaking an agreement on the transfers. On Tuesday, he warned that his government might move to take over the U.S.-supervised prison at Bagram air base where they are held. During a visit last weekend by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Karzai accused the United States of torturing Afghan civilians and colluding with the Taliban to prolong the war.
The U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., ordered American troops to intensify security measures on Wednesday out of concern that Karzai’s statements are creating a greater risk of attack from rogue Afghan security forces and insurgents.
The Obama administration considers the detainee problem a short-term disagreement unrelated to the strategic negotiations on Afghanistan’s future security. But Karzai has linked the two issues, drawing a direct line between U.S. acceptance of Afghanistan’s legal sovereignty and the U.S. demand that Afghanistan grant legal immunity to American troops within its borders after the 2014 withdrawal.
Aimal Faizi, a spokesman for Karzai, said the “lack of trust” that the United States has exhibited over the prisoners and other matters “certainly will have a negative impact on the bilateral security agreement.”
U.S. officials agree that a stalemate has been reached. “But we’re not sure whether we have a systemic walkback or just a technical issue that we have not moved to resolution quickly enough,” a senior administration official said. A late spring deadline to complete the security deal is “at risk of slipping,” the official said.
As Karzai’s rhetoric has become more inflamed, the administration has largely held its tongue. U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid escalating the confrontation, say they understand that Karzai has a domestic political audience so they’re giving him a chance to vent.
“His politics are, of course, different from ours,” the senior administration official said. “For us, the premium is on force protection,” and not allowing dangerous insurgents to return to the battlefield; “for him, the premium is on Afghan sovereignty.”
In response to the Dunford troop directive, first reported by the New York Times, Karzai reportedly told Afghans gathered at the presidential palace Thursday that his comments “were meant to help reform, not destroy the relationship.”
Although he is due to leave office next year, Karzai and his political allies face the prospect of how to survive after the withdrawal of Western combat troops and are determined to portray themselves as nationalist leaders.
The Karzai-U.S. relationship has always been a precarious one, propped up by patience and mutual need. But the instability has become more problematic as the administration rushes to withdraw 66,000 combat forces by the end of 2014 and persuade Congress and the American taxpayer to fund its long-term security plan for Afghanistan.
For President Obama’s endgame to work, a series of events must happen in relatively tight sequence during the next two years. The terms of the bilateral security agreement, known as a BSA, must be drafted as the administration finalizes the number of military trainers, advisers and counterterrorism forces it wants to remain in Afghanistan and specifies their mission.
The number and mission have direct bearing on the phased departure of U.S. combat troops, half of whom are scheduled to leave by next February. The uncertainty also affects Germany, Britain, Italy and other U.S. allies who have agreed to leave some forces behind, as well as the State Department and other civilian agencies trying to finalize post-war plans.
Once Karzai’s government approves an accord, it will require political and popular endorsement in Afghanistan, a process likely to become more complicated with the approach of elections scheduled for early 2014.
Looming over the negotiations is the memory of Iraq. Efforts to forge a similar agreement there went down to the wire before collapsing over the issue of troop immunity. The result was cancellation of plans for a postwar U.S. force, chalked up by Obama critics as a major foreign-policy failure.
Plans for how many U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan are unclear. Last week, Gen. James N. Mattis, head of the U.S. Central Command, told lawmakers that he has recommended leaving 13,600 U.S. and 6,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, significantly above what officials say the administration is considering.
The senior administration official said no final decision has been made. “We’re kind of in an interim phase right now, refining options,” the official said.
There is already opposition in some quarters to footing the bill for continued operations in Afghanistan. Karzai’s intransigence “is going to diminish our support at home,” the senior administration official said. “We don’t think that the prime window to get this done . . . is later. We think it’s sooner. On both sides, it gets more complicated.”
Last year, the United States agreed to give Afghans custody of thousands of battlefield prisoners at Parwan prison at the sprawling U.S. base at Bagram, north of Kabul.
With U.S. assistance, Afghan prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges have been trying the prisoners for crimes under the Afghan penal code. Many have been convicted and sentenced, but about 100 a month are released for lack of evidence.
At the end of last year, about 3,800 detainees remained at Parwan, only about 700 of whom were still under American control. Among them are 30 to 40 prisoners regarded by the U.S. military as “enduring security threats” who are considered most likely to return to the battlefield if released. U.S. officials say there is not enough unclassified evidence to convict them under Afghan law, which means they could go free if transferred to Afghan control.
A verbal agreement to turn over the high-threat prisoners was reached during Karzai’s visit to Washington in January, with explicit mention of the larger issue of immunity for U.S. troops. “In exchange for us finally granting respect of his sovereignty he was looking for,” the senior administration official said, Karzai agreed to an immunity provision and “finally said yes, you’re going to get your BSA.”
But when Afghan and U.S. officials convened in Kabul to put the prisoner accord in writing, they tried to find a way to guarantee that the high-risk detainees would remain in custody. They failed to come up with language that was acceptable to Karzai.
The handover was scheduled for March 8, but the U.S. military command called it off after Karzai refused to sign the written version of the transfer agreement.
One U.S. official acknowledged that the effort to retain some U.S. control over the high-risk detainees is ultimately a losing battle no matter how the current conflict is resolved. After 2014, with or without a long-term security agreement, they will all be turned over to Afghanistan to do with as it wishes.
Sieff reported from Kabul.
Karzai Will Bring on Govt Downfall: National Coalition
TOLOnews.com By Anisa Shahid Thursday, 14 March 2013
Afghanistan's National Coalition party Thursday accused President Hamid Karzai of demagoguery risking the good of the country with his thoughtless speeches against the US.
National Coalition leader Abdullah Abdullah said in the opening ceremony of Abdul Ali Mazari's Cultural and Social Foundation that Karzai is apathetic towards the good of the people and that he will take the government down.
"The leadership has lost its way. This leadership thinks only of its future and the future of its favorite small group," he said.
"In my view, the Taliban aims to collapse the government but damage of the government by this leadership is an equal disaster ," Abdullah said.
MP Abdul Zahir Qadir said the country's political leadership is asleep.
"The people were awake in the past, they are awake today, and in the future. The political leaders are sleeping. The leaders should be awake," he said at the ceremony.
Abdullah said a transparent election was essential to the country's future, but suggested that Karzai does not want to ensure this.
"We don't like that a person comes from abroad and replaces the president, this not people's wish. To end the problem it is important to hold a fair, transparent election but the president dosen't want the election," he said.
Karzai has in the past week made strong statements against the presence of the United States in Afghanistan, accusing them of secretly talking with the Taliban and wanting to benefit from Afghanistan's mines.
Afghan Politicians Urge U.S. Patience
Wall Street Journal By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV March 14, 2013
KABUL - Afghan opposition leaders urged Washington not to overreact to President Hamid Karzai's allegations of American collusion with the Taliban, saying there is broad support for a continued U.S. role in Afghanistan.
Mr. Karzai caused a furor on Sunday, the day he met visiting U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, by claiming that the Taliban kill civilians "in the service of America" so as to prolong foreign military presence. His statement provoked an outcry on Capitol Hill, with ranking Senate members threatening to pull the plug on Afghanistan. He made a similar statement on Tuesday.
The latest crisis in U.S.-Afghan ties erupted as President Barack Obama is still weighing what, if any, military presence the U.S. should maintain in Afghanistan after the coalition's current mandate ends late next year. Mr. Karzai said in a statement on Thursday that U.S.-Afghan relations have become "complicated," blaming the crisis on what he said was the American's lack of respect for Afghanistan's national sovereignty.
"For the sake of the people of Afghanistan, America should be a little bit patient with Karzai. They should not take very seriously anything he says," Ahmad Zia Massoud, a leader of an opposition alliance who served as Mr. Karzai's vice president in 2004-2009, urged Thursday. "He is completely alone, even the majority of his cabinet members are no longer with him. People worry—he's become a big problem for us."
The U.S. should keep in mind that Mr. Karzai's final term as president expires next spring, added Mr. Massoud, the brother of the legendary Tajik anti-Taliban commander Ahmad Shah Massoud who was slain by al Qaeda in 2001. Mr. Karzai is constitutionally barred from running again, and the field of likely successors is still wide open.
A prominent Pashtun opposition member who has been touted as a likely presidential candidate, former interior minister Hanif Atmar, said he was concerned that the U.S. and allies would draw the wrong conclusion from Mr. Karzai's broadsides.
"We appeal to our Western partners, especially the U.S. and NATO, that they should look at the stakes for Afghanistan and for the international community, particularly the vital national-security interests, and base their future decisions on the imperative of these interests rather than the angry statements of a leader," said Mr. Atmar.
Mr. Karzai's allegations of U.S. collusion with the Taliban, he added, aren't supported by evidence. "This is not the Afghan way to appreciate friends' sacrifices," he said.
Mr. Karzai's spokesman, Aimal Faizi, dismissed the opposition's criticism. "These individuals are taking advantage of the current situation for their own interests," he said. "It doesn't mean they represent the views of the nation."
Mr. Karzai was aware that his latest comments would cause outcry, but decided to go ahead anyway because he felt that complaints made to Western leaders behind closed doors were often ignored, Mr. Faizi said.
"We expected that we would be criticized for days, and that there would be different kinds of pressure not to give such statements. But the president will not stop," Mr. Faizi said. "His intent was not to harm relations between the two countries. It was to speak out about the concerns that he has, that the Afghan people have, in order to bring change to policies and strategies. It is good for the U.S. to understand these sensitivities."
A day after Mr. Karzai first made his charge of American complicity with the Taliban, an Afghan policeman opened fire on a gathering of U.S. and Afghan officials, killing two U.S. special operations troops in the province of Wardak.
Coalition commander U.S. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford has since put U.S.-led forces on heightened alert, warning in an advisory that Mr. Karzai's "inflammatory" words could prompt some Afghans to "lash out" at Western forces, according to an official familiar with the document. The coalition said in a statement Thursday that Gen. Dunford's advisory, reported earlier by the New York Times, was "prudent given increased coalition casualties in recent days."
Gen. Dunford met Mr. Karzai on Thursday, for the second day in a row, trying to find an agreement on how to transfer the main U.S. detention facility at Bagram Air Field to Afghan control while ensuring that dangerous Taliban detainees remain behind bars, officials from both countries said. The ceremony to hand over the Bagram jail was abruptly canceled on Saturday, prompting an angry rebuke from Mr. Karzai.
"We seek good relations and friendship with America, but friendship between two sovereign countries," Mr. Karzai said Thursday. —Habib Khan Totakhil contributed to this article.
Write to Yaroslav Trofimov at yaroslav.trofimov@wsj.com
Karzai Says Recent US Comments Aimed to Reform, Not Destroy
TOLOnews.com By Shakeela Ahbrimkhil Thursday, 14 March 2013
President Hamid Karzai's office released a statement Thursday explaining the president's controversial remarks earlier this week, after news of an email from the top Isaf commander in Afghanistan warning his soldiers to be on high alert broke.
"My recent comments were meant to help reform, not destroy the relationship," the presidential statement says, quoting Karzai telling an audience at the Presidential Palace Thursday. "We want good relations and friendship with America, but the relationship must be between two independent nations."
Following Karzai's harsh comments over the week on the US presence in Afghanistan, Gen Joseph Dunford emailed his battlefield commanders warning them of a higher risk of insider attacks.
The email, which was leaked to the New York Times, was confirmed by US officials as genuine.
"[Karzai's] remarks could be a catalyst for some to lash out against our forces - he may also issue orders that put our forces at risk ," Dunford said in the email.
Afghan leaders have lashed out at Karzai as well, calling him irresponsible, such as Dr. Abdullah Abdullah – one of the country's political opposition leaders.
"This much distrust between Afghanistan and its international partners including at the military level between the international forces and Afghanistan's national army and national police could lead to another security threat for the people of Afghanistan," Dr. Abdullah said.
"There has been an agreement that a part of these (international) forces would stay to train the National Army of Afghanistan that is still in need of such a thing, however [with Karzai's comments], not only may this become another challenge but also impossible," he added.
A number of political and military analysts weighed in with their views that Karzai's words could lead to an irreparable distrust between Afghan and international forces.
"In the letter sent from the General Commander of international forces to (his) troops, it is said that there has been a mistrust made from Afghan government side," said military expert Gen Amrullah Aman.
"Only the Afghan nation will be harmed if this trust between the Afghan government and international forces and the international community is lost," he added.
Military analyst Miagol Waseeq said: "Mr. President's statement would confuse the minds of our soldiers and those who have been to defend such values; they would be stimulated (to think) that maybe Americans are our enemies and therefore we should act this way ... unfortunately there has been green-on-blue attacks."
Stating his concern, Dunford said that the relationship between the United States and Afghanistan has come to a low and sensitive point.
Afghanistan wants to reform ties with US, says Karzai
By GHANIZADA - 15 Mar 2013, 10:16 am Khaama Press
Afghan president Hamid Karzai says Afghanistan wants to have bilateral ties with United States and other nations based on mutual respect, and the national sovereignty and interest of Afghanistan must be respected.
While speaking during a gathering attended by various people from different provinces in ARG presidential palace, Karzai said Afghanistan is a weak nation economic wise and is grateful for international community and United States financial support.
Karzai said United States is the friend and a strategic partner of Afghanistan and emphasized that his recent remarks were to reform ties between the two nations.
He said both Afghanistan and United States are in a critical situation and the two nations are looking to defend their national interest and stance for improving bilateral ties.
“We want good relations and friendship with Washington but the friendship should be between two sovereign nations.” Karzai said adding that the Afghan people have voted him to consider their interest.
President Karzai once again insisted that the transfer of Bagram prison to Afghanistan, civilian casualties, ignoring national sovereignty of Afghanistan and lack of transparency in war against terrorism are the main reasons behind deteriorating relations between Kabul and Washington.
At the March 11 public appearance, Karzai said: “The Taliban themselves are every day in discussions with the US yet in Kabul and Khost they set off bombs to show their prowess to the US.”
Rather than showing the US their “strength”, recent Taliban-claimed attacks in eastern Afghanistan were only working “in support” of a continued foreign presence in the country based on insecurity created by the group’s violent attacks, Karzai added.
The allegation of collusion provoked fury among US officials, as both nations negotiate the framework that could allow some American troops to remain in Afghanistan when NATO combat troops leave next year.
Afghan, Pakistani TV channels launch joint debates
Feature by BBC Monitoring 14 March, 2013
Two major Afghan and Pakistani television channels have launched joint debates between politicians from both countries from studios in Kabul and Islamabad. Called "Across the border", the discussion programme features Afghan and Pakistani panellists discuss relations between the two countries, regional problems and take questions from the studio audiences.
Initiated by Afghanistan's Tolonews and Pakistan's Express News, both news channels, the first in the series was aired on both channels on the evening of 13 March. [1]
Panellists in the first hour-long debate included former Afghan spy chief Amrollah Saleh and former Afghan Interior Minister Hanif Atmar. The Pakistani panel included former ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] chief Asad Durani, former Information Minister Shaykh Rashid Ahmad and Senator Haji Adil, who is a member of Pakistan's Pashtun-nationalist Awami National Party (ANP).
A few dozen journalists, students and civil society activists were present in each of the studios, where large screens showed the panellists and participants from each country. Mojahed Kakar and Manizha Jehangir moderated the Afghan and Pakistani panels respectively. All the discussions and questions were in English but Tolonews also provided a voiceover in Dari/Farsi.
Afghan social media commentators were full of praise for the initiative and the performance of the two Afghan panellists during the debate.
Themes
During the debate, Asad Durani called Afghanistan an occupied country and said that Pakistan had no option but to get involved in the latter's affairs and to hold talks with the warring sides in Afghanistan. He also stressed that unless Afghanistan recognized the Durand Line lingering tensions between the two nations would continue.
Khorshid Ahmad called for an end to the "blame game" and dismissed allegations that Pakistan was supporting the Afghan insurgency as a policy tool. He instead implied that Afghanistan and India were interfering in Pakistan, such as in the unrest in Pakistan's Baluchistan province.
Amrollah Saleh called on Pakistan to stop acting like a big brother towards Afghanistan and treating it as its backyard, warning that the policy could backfire. He asserted that the Pakistani establishment no longer hid their support for the Afghan insurgents.
"Pakistan has monopolized the right to have all sorts of foreign relations itself and when it comes to Afghanistan, they want to create limitations for us; treating us not as a nation, but as sub-nation, as to whom we should talk to or who should be our allies," he said.
Hanif Atmar said that Afghanistan aspired to have good relations with Pakistan and with its neighbours and near neighbours, adding that Pakistan had to respect this.
Comments by Senator Haji Adil were more in tune with those of the Afghan panellists. He agreed that certain Pakistani circles had been interfering in Afghanistan.
Past media cooperation
With some exceptions, there have previously been few interactions and little collaboration between the Afghan and Pakistani media outlets and journalists. While Afghanistan's Tolonews and the Pashto-language Shamshad TV channels have correspondents in Pakistan, the latter has no reporter in Afghanistan.
But this seems to be changing slowly.
In June 2012, top-rated Tolo TV, a sister channel of Tolonews, premiered Pakistan's highly successful Coke Studio music programmes. Tolo officials said that the exclusive broadcasts were part of their commitment to encourage
cooperation and collaboration among Pakistani and Afghan artists and musicians. [2]
In October 2012, Tolonews hosted a studio debate in Kabul with 25 journalists from Afghanistan and Pakistan on hot topics affecting the region, including the countries' media laws and coverage of regional issues. [3]
In December 2012, some 50 journalists from Pakistan and Afghanistan participated at a three-day media conference in the Peshawar city of Pakistan. The conference urged the participants to refrain from glorifying violence and militancy and instead to promote peace, economic development and prosperity in both countries. [4]
Afghan channels not allowed in Pakistan
Some Pakistani channels, such as AVT Khyber and Geo TV, are available through cable operators in Afghanistan. On the other hand, in spite of efforts by Afghanistan, Pakistan's media regulator, Pemra, has refused landing rights for Afghan TV channels.
"The negative images of Pakistan shown by Afghan or Indian media are detrimental to Pakistan... we cannot bring foreign media to Pakistan without clearance from security and intelligence agencies," said a former Pemra chief. [5
But Afghanistan's ambassador to Pakistan, Omar Daudzai, hopes that this may change. He says the two countries are working on a Memorandum of Understanding to begin an era of cooperation in the field of media with hopes that it would help bring the neighbours closer to each other. [6]
Media affiliations
Tolonews and leading Dari-language Tolo TV and are part of Afghanistan's burgeoning Moby Group. The group also owns Pashto-language Lemar TV, popular Radio Arman and Radio Arakozia. The group also owns the Dubai-based Farsi-language channels Farsi1 and Zemzemeh.
Express News is part of one of Pakistan's leading media groups which owns a number of TV channels and newspapers in Urdu, English and Sindhi, as well as online news services.
Notes:
[1] http://www.tolonews.com/en/miscellaneous-videos/9777-english-edition-af-pak-debate-across-the-border [English Edition]
[2] http://mobygroup.com/news-2012/346-coke-studio-in-afghanistan-exclusively-on-tolo-tv
[3] http://www.tolonews.com/en/ba-rewayate-digar/7958-ba-rewayate-digar-the-afghan-pakistan-journalist-debate-english-edition
[4] http://centralasiaonline.com/en_GB/articles/caii/features/pakistan/main/2012/12/13/feature-01
[5] http://tribune.com.pk/story/411892/the-future-of-pak-afghan-media-cooperation/
[6] http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-6-116320-Pakistan-Afghanistan-working-on-MoU-for-media-cooperation
Source: BBC Monitoring research 14 Mar 13
BBC Mon MD1 Media FMU SA1 SAsPol mn/ch
U.S. drone strikes violate Pakistan's sovereignty: U.N.
By Louis Charbonneau
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States has violated Pakistan's sovereignty and shattered tribal structures with unmanned drone strikes in its counterterrorism operations near the Afghan border, a U.N. human rights investigator said in a statement on Friday.
U.N. special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Emmerson, visited Pakistan for three days this week as part of his investigation into the civilian impact of the use of drones and other forms of targeted killings.
"As a matter of international law, the U.S. drone campaign in Pakistan is ... being conducted without the consent of the elected representatives of the people, or the legitimate Government of the State," Emmerson said in a statement issued by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva.
"It involves the use of force on the territory of another state without its consent and is therefore a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty," he said.
Emmerson said in January he would investigate 25 drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories. He is expected to present his final report to the U.N. General Assembly in October.
Washington had little to say about Emmerson's statement.
"We've seen his press release. I'm obviously not going to speak about classified information here," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said. "We have a strong ongoing counterterrorism dialogue with Pakistan and that will continue."
Spokesman Josh Earnest said the White House would withhold judgment until it sees Emmerson's full report.
"We have a solid working relationship with them (Pakistan) on a range of issues, including a close cooperative security relationship, and we're in touch with them on a regular basis on those issues."
'END MILITARY INTERFERENCE'
Emmerson said the Pashtun tribes of northwestern Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA, Pakistan's largely lawless region bordering Afghanistan, have been decimated by the counterterrorism operations.
"These proud and independent people have been self-governing for generations, and have a rich tribal history that has been too little understood in the West," he said. "Their tribal structures have been broken down by the military campaign in FATA and by the use of drones in particular."
The tribal areas have never been fully integrated into Pakistan's administrative, economic or judicial system. They are dominated by ethnic Pashtun tribes, some of which have sheltered and supported militants over decades of conflict in neighboring Afghanistan.
Clearing out militant border sanctuaries is seen by Washington as crucial to bringing stability to Afghanistan, particularly as the U.S.-led combat mission ends in 2014.
Most, but not all, attacks with unmanned aerial vehicles have been by the United States. Britain and Israel have also used them, and dozens of other countries are believed to possess the technology.
"It is time for the international community to heed the concerns of Pakistan, and give the next democratically elected government of Pakistan the space, support and assistance it needs to deliver a lasting peace on its own territory without forcible military interference by other states," Emmerson said.
The U.N. Human Rights Council asked Emmerson to start an investigation of the drone attacks following requests by countries including Pakistan, Russia and China.
Criticism of drone strikes centers on the number of civilians killed and the fact that they are launched across sovereign states' borders so frequently, far more than conventional attacks by piloted aircraft.
Retired U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, who devised the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, warned in January against overusing drones, which have provoked angry demonstrations in Pakistan.
Civilian casualties from drone strikes have angered local populations and created tension between the United States and Pakistan and Afghanistan. Washington has sought to portray civilian casualties as minimal, but groups collecting data on these attacks say they have killed hundreds of civilians.
(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria and Roberta Rampton in Washington; Editing by Doina Chiacu)
India and US share same goal in Afghanistan: Victoria Nuland
By MIRWAIS ADEEL - 15 Mar 2013, 9:32 am Khaama Press
US officials praised India’s constructive role in Afghanistan and said both Washington and New Delhi share the same goal in war-torn nation.
US Department of State spokesman Victoria Nuland praising India’s support in the rebuilding of Afghanistan said both New Delhi and Washington share the same goal in the war-torn nation.
She said, “We certainly have the same goal, which is an Afghanistan that can secure itself and that can have a prosperous, stable future, can be a good neighbour to India and everybody else in its region.”
India’s extended financial support to Afghanistan to Afghanistan was also appreciated by United States.
Nuland said, “India is providing a lot of support for police and other economic assistance to Afghanistan.
She also added the two countries support a peaceful, stable and secure Afghanistan.
U.S, Afghanistan to spend $249 million on counternarcotic, other programs
By CNN Staff March 14, 2013
Afghan and U.S. government officials formalized agreements Thursday for the spending of $249 million for joint counternarcotic, legal and law enforcement programs in the Southeast Asian nation.
U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Stephen G. McFarland and Afghan Deputy Foreign Minister Jawid Ludin signed the agreements, the U.S. State Department announced.
Among other projects, the funds will aim to promote "better governance in improving the administration of justice and enhanced rule of law, continuing the development of a safe, secure and humane corrections system; and increasing security through curtailment of the narcotics trade," the department said in a release.
Legal assistance bureaus will be set up with this money, and "violence against women" units will be established.
A chief focus is to bolster "drug demand-reduction programs in Afghanistan," as well as to reduce or eliminate poppy cultivation, the State Department said. The opium poppy can be used to make heroin and other drugs, and is considered a staple of insurgent funding.
Afghan Senator Opens Religious Learning Centre in Nangarhar
TOLOnews.com Thursday, 14 March 2013
A centre for religious studies has been opened in eastern Afghanistan in the hope that more Afghans will stay inside the country for such an education instead of going to Pakistan.
The senator who on Thursday opened the centre in eastern Nangarhar province said that Afghan children are going to Pakistan to get their religious education but they come back as insurgents and suicide bombers.
"With every day bringing suicide attacks and explosions, we decided to build a religious center here in order for our children and youth to get an Islamic education instead of going to neighboring countries where insurgency and military education was being taught" senator Lotfullah Baba said.
Lack of religious centers in the country obliges Afghan children to go Pakistan, he said.
Baba built the centre worth around Afs 15 million in the Hesar-e-Shahi district of the province.
"The centre already has 300 students... in the future we aim to attract 2000 students here ," Baba said.
Nangarhar shares a border with Pakistan which is why so many residents go there for a religious education.
Local officials have said that the residents wouldn't go to Pakistan if the government helped with more learning opportunities inside Afghanistan.
Roshan to Rollout 3G and Bring High Speed Data Services to the Country
Khaama Press By Khushnood Nabizada 15 Mar 2013
Roshan, today announced it has secured funding from the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank Group, to support the rollout of the company’s 3G and high speed data services throughout the country. IFC will provide Roshan debt financing for the amount of $65 million. This most recent injection of capital from IFC will enable Roshan to continue to expand its infrastructure and provide the highest quality network and services to its six million customers. Since Roshan was founded in 2003, it has concluded three earlier rounds of financing totaling almost $200 million. All of these previous loans have been fully paid on schedule.
A decade ago when Roshan began its operations, less than 100,000 people had access to mobile telecommunications. To date, the company has invested more than $550 million in infrastructure to create a state-of-the-art, high quality, network that provides coverage to over 65 percent of the population in 230 cities and towns in all of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. Today, Roshan’s customers not only have access to basic voice services, but can also access the internet, social media channels, and additional value added services including mobile banking. Roshan currently offers high-speed data services that are available nationwide and 3G will further complement the existing network infrastructure and provide faster access to services.
“In just a short period of time, the Afghan telecommunications market has grown rapidly and Roshan spearheaded that development. The ability to speak to one another is a basic human need and over ten years, Roshan has played an integral role in achieving this milestone. Now we are ready to lead the broadband revolution for Afghanistan’s next generation,” Karim Khoja, Roshan, Chief Executive Officer, said. “Apart from providing even faster speed and access for our customers, 3G’s enhanced connectivity enables greater access to vital, quality telecommunications that stimulate social and economic development in a host of sectors such as healthcare, education and finance. This will allow Roshan to build on our telemedicine, e-education and mobile banking applications that are already helping to develop and fast-track the country’s infrastructure,” Khoja added.
“As we have seen in countless places, the ability to communicate is vital for economic development,” said Mouayed Makhlouf, IFC Director for the Middle East and North Africa. “This agreement will help bring the internet to the doorstep of Afghans, opening up a world of possibilities.”
One of Roshan’s main goals is to be a catalyst for socio-economic development and harnessing the power of telecommunications to bring about measureable change in Afghanistan. In 2007 Roshan started its Telemedicine project linking the French Medical Institute for Children (FMIC) in Kabul to the Aga Khan University Hospital in Karachi (AKUH). Since then, the Telemedicine Project has expanded to include Bamiyan Hospital (2010) and Faizabad Hospital (2011) to deliver remote medical care, diagnosis, treatment and training to populated and isolated areas of the country. With the addition of 3G, this will spur even further development and greater connectivity to those areas that need it the most.
IFC, a member of the World Bank Group is the largest global development institution focused exclusively on the private sector. We help developing countries achieve sustainable growth by financing investment, mobilizing capital in international financial markets, and providing advisory services to businesses and governments. In the fiscal year 2012, our investments reached an all-time high of more than $20 billion, leveraging the power of the private sector to create jobs, spark innovation, and tackle the world’s most pressing development challenges.
Zabul Residents Promise to Ban Poppy for Work
TOLOnews.com By Faridullah Sahil Thursday, 14 March 2013
Residents of Zabul province gathered on Thursday in the provincial capital Qalat and called for an end to poppy cultivation.
Most of the residents at the gathering pledged that they will not allow anyone to cultivate poppy in Zabul Province, and if anyone does they will be handed over to the law.
In exchange, the residents called on the government to provide them with work opportunities, particularly for the young people in the province.
"Drugs are all banned in Islam and what we are cultivating we should ban that," one the residents said.
The Zabul provincial governor Mohammad Ashraf Nasiri praised the residents' commitment and said that the government will do all it can to solve their problems.
"Last year a number of students in Zabul was 60,000, but this year we will try to raise this number to 100,000 students," Nasiri said.
The Zabul residents warned that if employment opportunities for Zabul residents do not improve, problems will increase in the province.
It comes as Afghanistan again topped the list of the world's biggest narcotics producers with drug smugglers using a route through India more than in previous years, according to a US State Department report.
The annual report on global trends in the illegal narcotics trade confirmed that Afghanistan retains its position as the world's top opiate producer.
It also said that the drugs smuggled in 2012 through India from Afghanistan are increasing via Pakistan.
According to the Afghan Ministry of Counter Narcotics, poppy cultivation in Afghanistan increased 18 percent from 2011 to 2012, but drug production dropped 40 percent mainly because of the government's poppy eradication drive whereby government and security forces physically destroy farmers' poppy crops.
Most of Afghanistan's poppy cultivation happens in the south and west areas of Afghanistan, both for its suitable climate and in areas where security is more lax.
Land-Grabbing Commission Set Up to Investigate Reports
TOLOnews.com Thursday, 14 March 2013
Afghanistan's senate has set up a commission to address the problem of land grabbing in the country amid reports of powerful figures taking control of large tracts of land.
"The Senate and the land disputes resolution commission promises to do its best against land grabbing by powerful figures and it will soon share its achievements with the Afghan people ," Senator Nesar Ahmad Harris said Wednesday.
The Land Disputes Resolution Commission accused high-ranking government officials and relatives of those in power of claiming land that was not their own. They warned they would soon disclose the names of all land grabbers.
"The lands are being [illegally] claimed mostly by the president's relatives and vice presidents relatives," Senator Haji Mohammad Naaem Popal said.
Kabul's Police Headquarters said that land grabbers would be arrested by police.
"If they are recognised, we will proceed to arrest them and hand them over to higher authorities ," Deputy of Kabul Police Mohammad Daoud Amin said.
The problem of land grabbing has been happening for a decade with around 4 million acres believed to have been wrongly claimed.
It comes as Nangarhar's provincial council and residents on Wednesday voiced their concerns over the increase of land grabbing in the province.
Council members said that recently a person has claimed Amanullah Khan garden in Jalalabad city after having introduced himself as Amanullah Khan's family attorney.
"We can't tolerate land grabbing here in our province. We ask government to stop them otherwise we will have a big disaster ," Nangarhar provincial council member Abdul Basir Gulab said.
Nangarhar Governor Gul Agha Shirzai said that Amanullah Khan garden is government property.
"Amanullah Khan garden is government property. Nobody has the right to claim it," he said.
The governor and residents asked the central government to avoid land grabbing in the province otherwise they threatened to start demonstrating over the issue.
www.afghanistannewscenter.com
By Mirwais Harooni | Reuters – Fri, Mar 15, 2013.
KABUL (Reuters) - Security forces in the Afghan capital have defused a truck bomb packed with nearly eight tonnes of explosives, the biggest of its kind discovered in the country, the spy agency said on Friday amid heightened security.
Intelligence forces discovered the explosives in eastern Kabul, wired and ready for detonation, security officials said. Five al-Qaeda linked Haqqani network insurgents were killed in a resulting firefight.
"This truck bomb could have destroyed an area around 1.5 km (in radius). Now can you imagine that what kind of catastrophe this would be?," Shafiqullah Tahiri, a spokesman for the National Directorate of Security, told a news conference.
It contained sodium chloride, ammonium nitrate, other chemicals and some diesel.
After more than 11 years of war, insurgents are still able to strike strategic military targets and launch high-profile attacks in Kabul and elsewhere.
The truck bomb was discovered on Wednesday two days after U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel left the capital. On the first full day of Hagel's visit, a suicide bomber struck about a kilometer away from his morning meetings at a NATO facility.
Two Haqqani operatives were arrested during the night raid, and Tahiri said the militants had been planning to target a military facility in the capital. There are several foreign and Afghan military bases in Kabul, housing thousands of soldiers.
The Haqqani network is widely regarded as the most dangerous U.S. foe in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is bracing for the start of the spring fighting season, and officials fear that militants will infiltrate the capital as the snow melts in the mountains to the east where they hide.
A number of insurgent groups, including the Taliban, the Haqqani network and Hizb-i-Islami, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, are known to reside in restive Wardak province just 40 minutes drive from Kabul.
Afghan officials told Reuters this week they were worried that the Afghan capital would be in danger after President Hamid Karzai ordered U.S. special forces tasked with fighting the Taliban to leave Wardak.
U.S. special forces are expected to play a major role after most NATO combat troops withdraw by the end of 2014, and Karzai's decision could complicate negotiations between the United States and Afghanistan over the scope of U.S. operations after the pull-out.
International forces in Afghanistan have also been warned the that recent inflammatory remarks by Karzai have put them at risk, NATO commander General Joseph Dunford said in an email obtained by the New York Times this week.
Karzai accused the United States of colluding with the Taliban hours before the two met last Sunday. His remarks, which have been rejected by Washington, highlight an often tense relationship with the United States.
(Writing by Jeremy Laurence; Editing by Nick Macfie)
Afghan forces kill 1 militant, detain 10
FAIZABAD, Afghanistan, March 15 (Xinhua) -- Afghan security forces launched a cleanup operation in Badakhshan province 315 km northeast of Kabul on Thursday to evict Taliban militants from their hideouts, a spokesman said Friday.
"During the operation which covered Wardoj and Jerm districts so far one Taliban rebel has been killed and 10 others have been arrested," spokesman for provincial administration Abdul Marouf Rasikh told Xinhua.
He also said that the operation will continue till the anti- government militants are killed or surrender.
The operation is taking place in the wake of killing 16 Afghan soldiers by Taliban militants in Wardoj district early this month.
A relatively peaceful province, Badakhshan has been the scene of Taliban-linked militancy since early this year.
Is Obama to blame for the mess in Afghanistan?
A new book by an administration insider argues a “dithering” White House has led to key missteps in Afghanistan and a loss of American power in the world.
Global Post By Jean MacKenzie March 14, 2013
BUZZARDS BAY, Mass. - As the recent fracas in Afghanistan amply demonstrates, the picture is not at all rosy with regards to the United States’ longest-running war.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai's public rebuke of his US allies during the first visit of the newly confirmed defense secretary to Kabul has sparked renewed debate in Washington about the wisdom of continuing the drawn-out, and what many call fruitless, effort.
What is less clear is who is responsible for the dismal course of events. There are certainly many worthy targets for finger-pointing: allegedly corrupt and incompetent Afghan officials; intransigent Taliban insurgents; insufficiently committed international actors; US policymakers who failed to identify clear and realistic goals.
But a new book by an insider from Barack Obama's administration pins the blame squarely on the US president, and what it describes as his lack of experience, need for control, and inability to stand up to his military advisers that make any sort of rational solution to the conflict all but impossible.
“The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat,” by renowned international affairs expert Vali Nasr, will be released next month. A lengthy excerpt published in Foreign Policy magazine last week is already causing a stir.
President Obama came into office in 2009 with the promise of a “new beginning” in America’s approach to the world, an end to the militarized foreign policy of the Bush years, and a pledge to the nations of the world that “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
It was heady talk, and many were caught up in the “hope and change” dynamic.
But, as Nasr points out, there was, and remains, an immense gulf between rhetoric and reality.
Nasr, dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, served in the first Obama administration for two years as an assistant to Richard Holbrooke, special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Holbrooke was known for collecting the best and the brightest around him, and he courted Nasr, then a tenured professor at Tufts University, with his customary panache.
”If you want to change things, you have to get involved. If you want your voice to be heard, then get inside," he told an initially reluctant Nasr. Besides, he added, ”if you work for anyone else, I will break your knees.”
But life as an insider was not what Nasr expected.
"My time in the Obama administration turned out to be a deeply disillusioning experience," he writes.
Nasr tells of a White House that “jealously guarded all foreign policymaking,” ignoring the experts while gauging all actions exclusively on their ability to sway public opinion.
“The president had a truly disturbing habit of funneling major foreign policy decisions through a small cabal of relatively inexperienced White House advisers whose turf was strictly politics,” writes Nasr. “Their primary concern was how any action in Afghanistan or the Middle East would play on the nightly news, or which talking point it would give the Republicans.”
During his first campaign, Obama had called Afghanistan the “good war” and promised to do all he could to build a strong democratic state in Afghanistan capable of standing up to terrorism.
But once in office, Obama proved incapable of taking concrete action, according to the former adviser. Instead, he engaged in what Nasr calls “the Obama administration's first AfPak disaster: the torturously long 2009 strategic review.”
All through Obama’s first year as president, the debate raged over what to do in Afghanistan, as it became increasingly obvious that the US was losing the war.
The military was pushing for a surge, while the diplomats insisted that negotiations were the only way forward.
“The Taliban were ready for talks as early as April 2009,” writes Nasr, detailing the findings of prominent Afghanistan scholar Barnett Rubin, who had met with senior Taliban officials early in 2009.
Rubin, who was shortly to join Holbrooke’s team as his senior Afghan-affairs adviser, conferred in Kabul with former Taliban commander Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, “who laid out in detail a strategy for talks: where to start, what to discuss, and the shape of the settlement that the United States and the Taliban could agree on.”
Rubin wrote a memo on his trip for Holbrooke, who read it and remarked, “If this thing works, it may be the only way we will get out.”
But the White House, deferring to the military, was not ready to talk to the Taliban. While other NATO powers, particularly the United Kingdom, pushed for negotiations, Washington stood firmly opposed.
“The White House did not want to try anything as audacious as diplomacy,” writes Nasr.
The strategic review consumed hundreds of hours to little effect. The White House kept calling for more and more reports, and conducting more and more meetings.
“Obama was dithering,” writes Nasr. “He was busybodying the national security apparatus by asking for more answers to the same set of questions, each time posed differently.”
Obama was afraid that standing against the Pentagon would make him look weak, says Nasr, and ultimately agreed to send more troops.
But even here, the president could not commit. In his speech at West Point on Dec. 1, 2009, Obama announced a “surge” of 30,000 troops, but in the same address he also promised that a drawdown would begin in July 2011.
This, argues Nasr, was one of the worst mistakes of Obama’s entire Afghan policy. By announcing the surge was a temporary phenomenon, he ended up undercutting any leverage he might have had to nudge the Taliban into productive talks.
“If you are leaving, why would the Taliban make a deal with you? How would you make the deal stick?” he asks.
But, as Nasr points out, the decision had less to do with strategic priorities than with politics.
Bob Woodward, in “Obama’s Wars,” his 2010 investigation of the internecine struggles that dominated Obama’s first year in office, recounts an interchange between the president and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, the day after the West Point speech.
Graham was troubled by the announced withdrawal, and was looking for assurance that it was not set in stone.
The president, however, was adamant.
“We’re going to start leaving,” said Obama. “I have to say that. I can’t let this be a war without end, and I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”
“You’re right,” replied Graham. “But the enemy is listening too.”
In dispute
Nasr’s views will certainly be unwelcome to the White House.
Benjamin Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser in the Obama administration, is already disputing Nasr’s interpretation of events.
Setting a withdrawal date from Afghanistan was essential to signal that the American commitment was not open-ended, Rhodes told The New York Times. The administration wanted to send a message to the Afghans that it was time to step up.
Nasr’s account has drawn ire from other Afghanistan experts as well. Sarah Chayes, former journalist who also served as special adviser on Afghanistan to two International Security Assistance Force commanders as well as to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took on Nasr’s analysis in her own piece in Foreign Policy magazine this week.
Chayes herself has been an outspoken critic of US policy in Afghanistan, and her 2007 book, “The Punishment of Virtue,” does not mince words on what she sees as the often startling lack of understanding the military displayed in dealing with Afghanistan.
She also does not dispute Nasr’s basic premise, that Obama failed to push hard enough for the right options because he was too focused on the American electorate.
“Far be it from me to deny that the Obama White House may have exercised an excessive or insular grip on foreign policy, linking it too closely to domestic electoral considerations,” she writes.
But Chayes disagrees with Nasr’s contention that negotiations with the Taliban were the best, or the only, way out, and thinks that he does not sufficiently take Pakistan’s negative role into consideration.
“Nasr's prescription for negotiating with the Taliban neglects the militants' intensive, if often fraught, ties to Pakistan's all-powerful military intelligence agency, the ISI,” she says. “Nasr writes of negotiations as though the United States would be engaging with an autonomous Afghan entity, not the heavily influenced Pakistani proxy most Taliban leaders constitute."
Chayes finds that “Nasr's recipes are startlingly simplistic,” and wishes he displayed the “humility and intellectual honesty to take a candid look inward, to strive for a nuanced assessment of our shared missteps, in what I, like Nasr, believe will be a grim outcome for Afghanistan, and ultimately for international security.”
Perhaps there is still more blame to be assigned. But nothing in Chayes’ sometimes scathing response to Nasr mitigates his main argument: the administration’s drift in foreign policy has considerably damaged America’s standing in the world.
“[Obama’s] actions from start to finish were guided by politics, and they played well at home,” he writes. “Abroad, however, the stories the United States tells to justify its on-again, off-again approach do not ring true to friend or foe.”
The world, says Nasr, is not buying America’s vision of itself as “the indispensible nation,” and is looking less and less to Washington for leadership.
“Everyone,” he says, is “getting used to a directionless America.”
Jean MacKenzie worked as a reporter in Afghanistan from October 2004 to December 2011, first as the head of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, then as a senior corespondent for GlobalPost.
US refuse to transfer high-risk prisoners to Afghan control
By GHANIZADA - 15 Mar 2013, 6:32 pm Khaama Press
Dispute between Kabul and Washington over the fate of about three dozen militants held by US forces in Afghanistan has disrupted negotiations over a long-term security agreement between the two nations, Washington Post reported.
The prisoners deemed especially dangerous as compared with the more than 3,000 which have already been transferred to Afghan control is said to be the main reason behind United States decision to refuse the turn over of the prisoners.
US officials have denied the hand over of the prisoners unless president Hamid Karzai guarantees they not be released.
This comes as tensions between Kabul and Washington mounted during the recent days after president Hamid Karzai accused United States of braking an agreement on the transfer and criticized Washington for colluding with the Taliban group.
Karzai’s remarks put international coalition security forces after US commander in Afghanistan Gen. Joseph F. Dunord Jr., order American troops to intensify security measures.
However the Obama administration considers the detainee problem a short-term disagreement unrelated to the strategic negotiations on Afghanistan’s future security.
But officials in president Karzai’s office warned that lack of trust that the United States has exhibited over the prisoners and other matters “certainly will have a negative impact on the bilateral security agreement.”
Dispute over high-risk prisoners threatens to disrupt U.S.-Afghan talks
Washington Post By Karen DeYoung and Kevin Sieff Friday, March 15, 2013
A dispute over the fate of about three dozen militants held by U.S. forces in Afghanistan has disrupted negotiations over a long-term security agreement to leave U.S. troops in the country after 2014.
The United States has refused to turn over the prisoners — deemed especially dangerous compared with more than 3,000 already transferred to Afghan control — unless President Hamid Karzai guarantees they will not be released. He has so far declined.
As tensions have risen in recent days, Karzai has accused the United States of breaking an agreement on the transfers. On Tuesday, he warned that his government might move to take over the U.S.-supervised prison at Bagram air base where they are held. During a visit last weekend by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Karzai accused the United States of torturing Afghan civilians and colluding with the Taliban to prolong the war.
The U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., ordered American troops to intensify security measures on Wednesday out of concern that Karzai’s statements are creating a greater risk of attack from rogue Afghan security forces and insurgents.
The Obama administration considers the detainee problem a short-term disagreement unrelated to the strategic negotiations on Afghanistan’s future security. But Karzai has linked the two issues, drawing a direct line between U.S. acceptance of Afghanistan’s legal sovereignty and the U.S. demand that Afghanistan grant legal immunity to American troops within its borders after the 2014 withdrawal.
Aimal Faizi, a spokesman for Karzai, said the “lack of trust” that the United States has exhibited over the prisoners and other matters “certainly will have a negative impact on the bilateral security agreement.”
U.S. officials agree that a stalemate has been reached. “But we’re not sure whether we have a systemic walkback or just a technical issue that we have not moved to resolution quickly enough,” a senior administration official said. A late spring deadline to complete the security deal is “at risk of slipping,” the official said.
As Karzai’s rhetoric has become more inflamed, the administration has largely held its tongue. U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid escalating the confrontation, say they understand that Karzai has a domestic political audience so they’re giving him a chance to vent.
“His politics are, of course, different from ours,” the senior administration official said. “For us, the premium is on force protection,” and not allowing dangerous insurgents to return to the battlefield; “for him, the premium is on Afghan sovereignty.”
In response to the Dunford troop directive, first reported by the New York Times, Karzai reportedly told Afghans gathered at the presidential palace Thursday that his comments “were meant to help reform, not destroy the relationship.”
Although he is due to leave office next year, Karzai and his political allies face the prospect of how to survive after the withdrawal of Western combat troops and are determined to portray themselves as nationalist leaders.
The Karzai-U.S. relationship has always been a precarious one, propped up by patience and mutual need. But the instability has become more problematic as the administration rushes to withdraw 66,000 combat forces by the end of 2014 and persuade Congress and the American taxpayer to fund its long-term security plan for Afghanistan.
For President Obama’s endgame to work, a series of events must happen in relatively tight sequence during the next two years. The terms of the bilateral security agreement, known as a BSA, must be drafted as the administration finalizes the number of military trainers, advisers and counterterrorism forces it wants to remain in Afghanistan and specifies their mission.
The number and mission have direct bearing on the phased departure of U.S. combat troops, half of whom are scheduled to leave by next February. The uncertainty also affects Germany, Britain, Italy and other U.S. allies who have agreed to leave some forces behind, as well as the State Department and other civilian agencies trying to finalize post-war plans.
Once Karzai’s government approves an accord, it will require political and popular endorsement in Afghanistan, a process likely to become more complicated with the approach of elections scheduled for early 2014.
Looming over the negotiations is the memory of Iraq. Efforts to forge a similar agreement there went down to the wire before collapsing over the issue of troop immunity. The result was cancellation of plans for a postwar U.S. force, chalked up by Obama critics as a major foreign-policy failure.
Plans for how many U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan are unclear. Last week, Gen. James N. Mattis, head of the U.S. Central Command, told lawmakers that he has recommended leaving 13,600 U.S. and 6,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, significantly above what officials say the administration is considering.
The senior administration official said no final decision has been made. “We’re kind of in an interim phase right now, refining options,” the official said.
There is already opposition in some quarters to footing the bill for continued operations in Afghanistan. Karzai’s intransigence “is going to diminish our support at home,” the senior administration official said. “We don’t think that the prime window to get this done . . . is later. We think it’s sooner. On both sides, it gets more complicated.”
Last year, the United States agreed to give Afghans custody of thousands of battlefield prisoners at Parwan prison at the sprawling U.S. base at Bagram, north of Kabul.
With U.S. assistance, Afghan prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges have been trying the prisoners for crimes under the Afghan penal code. Many have been convicted and sentenced, but about 100 a month are released for lack of evidence.
At the end of last year, about 3,800 detainees remained at Parwan, only about 700 of whom were still under American control. Among them are 30 to 40 prisoners regarded by the U.S. military as “enduring security threats” who are considered most likely to return to the battlefield if released. U.S. officials say there is not enough unclassified evidence to convict them under Afghan law, which means they could go free if transferred to Afghan control.
A verbal agreement to turn over the high-threat prisoners was reached during Karzai’s visit to Washington in January, with explicit mention of the larger issue of immunity for U.S. troops. “In exchange for us finally granting respect of his sovereignty he was looking for,” the senior administration official said, Karzai agreed to an immunity provision and “finally said yes, you’re going to get your BSA.”
But when Afghan and U.S. officials convened in Kabul to put the prisoner accord in writing, they tried to find a way to guarantee that the high-risk detainees would remain in custody. They failed to come up with language that was acceptable to Karzai.
The handover was scheduled for March 8, but the U.S. military command called it off after Karzai refused to sign the written version of the transfer agreement.
One U.S. official acknowledged that the effort to retain some U.S. control over the high-risk detainees is ultimately a losing battle no matter how the current conflict is resolved. After 2014, with or without a long-term security agreement, they will all be turned over to Afghanistan to do with as it wishes.
Sieff reported from Kabul.
Karzai Will Bring on Govt Downfall: National Coalition
TOLOnews.com By Anisa Shahid Thursday, 14 March 2013
Afghanistan's National Coalition party Thursday accused President Hamid Karzai of demagoguery risking the good of the country with his thoughtless speeches against the US.
National Coalition leader Abdullah Abdullah said in the opening ceremony of Abdul Ali Mazari's Cultural and Social Foundation that Karzai is apathetic towards the good of the people and that he will take the government down.
"The leadership has lost its way. This leadership thinks only of its future and the future of its favorite small group," he said.
"In my view, the Taliban aims to collapse the government but damage of the government by this leadership is an equal disaster ," Abdullah said.
MP Abdul Zahir Qadir said the country's political leadership is asleep.
"The people were awake in the past, they are awake today, and in the future. The political leaders are sleeping. The leaders should be awake," he said at the ceremony.
Abdullah said a transparent election was essential to the country's future, but suggested that Karzai does not want to ensure this.
"We don't like that a person comes from abroad and replaces the president, this not people's wish. To end the problem it is important to hold a fair, transparent election but the president dosen't want the election," he said.
Karzai has in the past week made strong statements against the presence of the United States in Afghanistan, accusing them of secretly talking with the Taliban and wanting to benefit from Afghanistan's mines.
Afghan Politicians Urge U.S. Patience
Wall Street Journal By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV March 14, 2013
KABUL - Afghan opposition leaders urged Washington not to overreact to President Hamid Karzai's allegations of American collusion with the Taliban, saying there is broad support for a continued U.S. role in Afghanistan.
Mr. Karzai caused a furor on Sunday, the day he met visiting U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, by claiming that the Taliban kill civilians "in the service of America" so as to prolong foreign military presence. His statement provoked an outcry on Capitol Hill, with ranking Senate members threatening to pull the plug on Afghanistan. He made a similar statement on Tuesday.
The latest crisis in U.S.-Afghan ties erupted as President Barack Obama is still weighing what, if any, military presence the U.S. should maintain in Afghanistan after the coalition's current mandate ends late next year. Mr. Karzai said in a statement on Thursday that U.S.-Afghan relations have become "complicated," blaming the crisis on what he said was the American's lack of respect for Afghanistan's national sovereignty.
"For the sake of the people of Afghanistan, America should be a little bit patient with Karzai. They should not take very seriously anything he says," Ahmad Zia Massoud, a leader of an opposition alliance who served as Mr. Karzai's vice president in 2004-2009, urged Thursday. "He is completely alone, even the majority of his cabinet members are no longer with him. People worry—he's become a big problem for us."
The U.S. should keep in mind that Mr. Karzai's final term as president expires next spring, added Mr. Massoud, the brother of the legendary Tajik anti-Taliban commander Ahmad Shah Massoud who was slain by al Qaeda in 2001. Mr. Karzai is constitutionally barred from running again, and the field of likely successors is still wide open.
A prominent Pashtun opposition member who has been touted as a likely presidential candidate, former interior minister Hanif Atmar, said he was concerned that the U.S. and allies would draw the wrong conclusion from Mr. Karzai's broadsides.
"We appeal to our Western partners, especially the U.S. and NATO, that they should look at the stakes for Afghanistan and for the international community, particularly the vital national-security interests, and base their future decisions on the imperative of these interests rather than the angry statements of a leader," said Mr. Atmar.
Mr. Karzai's allegations of U.S. collusion with the Taliban, he added, aren't supported by evidence. "This is not the Afghan way to appreciate friends' sacrifices," he said.
Mr. Karzai's spokesman, Aimal Faizi, dismissed the opposition's criticism. "These individuals are taking advantage of the current situation for their own interests," he said. "It doesn't mean they represent the views of the nation."
Mr. Karzai was aware that his latest comments would cause outcry, but decided to go ahead anyway because he felt that complaints made to Western leaders behind closed doors were often ignored, Mr. Faizi said.
"We expected that we would be criticized for days, and that there would be different kinds of pressure not to give such statements. But the president will not stop," Mr. Faizi said. "His intent was not to harm relations between the two countries. It was to speak out about the concerns that he has, that the Afghan people have, in order to bring change to policies and strategies. It is good for the U.S. to understand these sensitivities."
A day after Mr. Karzai first made his charge of American complicity with the Taliban, an Afghan policeman opened fire on a gathering of U.S. and Afghan officials, killing two U.S. special operations troops in the province of Wardak.
Coalition commander U.S. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford has since put U.S.-led forces on heightened alert, warning in an advisory that Mr. Karzai's "inflammatory" words could prompt some Afghans to "lash out" at Western forces, according to an official familiar with the document. The coalition said in a statement Thursday that Gen. Dunford's advisory, reported earlier by the New York Times, was "prudent given increased coalition casualties in recent days."
Gen. Dunford met Mr. Karzai on Thursday, for the second day in a row, trying to find an agreement on how to transfer the main U.S. detention facility at Bagram Air Field to Afghan control while ensuring that dangerous Taliban detainees remain behind bars, officials from both countries said. The ceremony to hand over the Bagram jail was abruptly canceled on Saturday, prompting an angry rebuke from Mr. Karzai.
"We seek good relations and friendship with America, but friendship between two sovereign countries," Mr. Karzai said Thursday. —Habib Khan Totakhil contributed to this article.
Write to Yaroslav Trofimov at yaroslav.trofimov@wsj.com
Karzai Says Recent US Comments Aimed to Reform, Not Destroy
TOLOnews.com By Shakeela Ahbrimkhil Thursday, 14 March 2013
President Hamid Karzai's office released a statement Thursday explaining the president's controversial remarks earlier this week, after news of an email from the top Isaf commander in Afghanistan warning his soldiers to be on high alert broke.
"My recent comments were meant to help reform, not destroy the relationship," the presidential statement says, quoting Karzai telling an audience at the Presidential Palace Thursday. "We want good relations and friendship with America, but the relationship must be between two independent nations."
Following Karzai's harsh comments over the week on the US presence in Afghanistan, Gen Joseph Dunford emailed his battlefield commanders warning them of a higher risk of insider attacks.
The email, which was leaked to the New York Times, was confirmed by US officials as genuine.
"[Karzai's] remarks could be a catalyst for some to lash out against our forces - he may also issue orders that put our forces at risk ," Dunford said in the email.
Afghan leaders have lashed out at Karzai as well, calling him irresponsible, such as Dr. Abdullah Abdullah – one of the country's political opposition leaders.
"This much distrust between Afghanistan and its international partners including at the military level between the international forces and Afghanistan's national army and national police could lead to another security threat for the people of Afghanistan," Dr. Abdullah said.
"There has been an agreement that a part of these (international) forces would stay to train the National Army of Afghanistan that is still in need of such a thing, however [with Karzai's comments], not only may this become another challenge but also impossible," he added.
A number of political and military analysts weighed in with their views that Karzai's words could lead to an irreparable distrust between Afghan and international forces.
"In the letter sent from the General Commander of international forces to (his) troops, it is said that there has been a mistrust made from Afghan government side," said military expert Gen Amrullah Aman.
"Only the Afghan nation will be harmed if this trust between the Afghan government and international forces and the international community is lost," he added.
Military analyst Miagol Waseeq said: "Mr. President's statement would confuse the minds of our soldiers and those who have been to defend such values; they would be stimulated (to think) that maybe Americans are our enemies and therefore we should act this way ... unfortunately there has been green-on-blue attacks."
Stating his concern, Dunford said that the relationship between the United States and Afghanistan has come to a low and sensitive point.
Afghanistan wants to reform ties with US, says Karzai
By GHANIZADA - 15 Mar 2013, 10:16 am Khaama Press
Afghan president Hamid Karzai says Afghanistan wants to have bilateral ties with United States and other nations based on mutual respect, and the national sovereignty and interest of Afghanistan must be respected.
While speaking during a gathering attended by various people from different provinces in ARG presidential palace, Karzai said Afghanistan is a weak nation economic wise and is grateful for international community and United States financial support.
Karzai said United States is the friend and a strategic partner of Afghanistan and emphasized that his recent remarks were to reform ties between the two nations.
He said both Afghanistan and United States are in a critical situation and the two nations are looking to defend their national interest and stance for improving bilateral ties.
“We want good relations and friendship with Washington but the friendship should be between two sovereign nations.” Karzai said adding that the Afghan people have voted him to consider their interest.
President Karzai once again insisted that the transfer of Bagram prison to Afghanistan, civilian casualties, ignoring national sovereignty of Afghanistan and lack of transparency in war against terrorism are the main reasons behind deteriorating relations between Kabul and Washington.
At the March 11 public appearance, Karzai said: “The Taliban themselves are every day in discussions with the US yet in Kabul and Khost they set off bombs to show their prowess to the US.”
Rather than showing the US their “strength”, recent Taliban-claimed attacks in eastern Afghanistan were only working “in support” of a continued foreign presence in the country based on insecurity created by the group’s violent attacks, Karzai added.
The allegation of collusion provoked fury among US officials, as both nations negotiate the framework that could allow some American troops to remain in Afghanistan when NATO combat troops leave next year.
Afghan, Pakistani TV channels launch joint debates
Feature by BBC Monitoring 14 March, 2013
Two major Afghan and Pakistani television channels have launched joint debates between politicians from both countries from studios in Kabul and Islamabad. Called "Across the border", the discussion programme features Afghan and Pakistani panellists discuss relations between the two countries, regional problems and take questions from the studio audiences.
Initiated by Afghanistan's Tolonews and Pakistan's Express News, both news channels, the first in the series was aired on both channels on the evening of 13 March. [1]
Panellists in the first hour-long debate included former Afghan spy chief Amrollah Saleh and former Afghan Interior Minister Hanif Atmar. The Pakistani panel included former ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] chief Asad Durani, former Information Minister Shaykh Rashid Ahmad and Senator Haji Adil, who is a member of Pakistan's Pashtun-nationalist Awami National Party (ANP).
A few dozen journalists, students and civil society activists were present in each of the studios, where large screens showed the panellists and participants from each country. Mojahed Kakar and Manizha Jehangir moderated the Afghan and Pakistani panels respectively. All the discussions and questions were in English but Tolonews also provided a voiceover in Dari/Farsi.
Afghan social media commentators were full of praise for the initiative and the performance of the two Afghan panellists during the debate.
Themes
During the debate, Asad Durani called Afghanistan an occupied country and said that Pakistan had no option but to get involved in the latter's affairs and to hold talks with the warring sides in Afghanistan. He also stressed that unless Afghanistan recognized the Durand Line lingering tensions between the two nations would continue.
Khorshid Ahmad called for an end to the "blame game" and dismissed allegations that Pakistan was supporting the Afghan insurgency as a policy tool. He instead implied that Afghanistan and India were interfering in Pakistan, such as in the unrest in Pakistan's Baluchistan province.
Amrollah Saleh called on Pakistan to stop acting like a big brother towards Afghanistan and treating it as its backyard, warning that the policy could backfire. He asserted that the Pakistani establishment no longer hid their support for the Afghan insurgents.
"Pakistan has monopolized the right to have all sorts of foreign relations itself and when it comes to Afghanistan, they want to create limitations for us; treating us not as a nation, but as sub-nation, as to whom we should talk to or who should be our allies," he said.
Hanif Atmar said that Afghanistan aspired to have good relations with Pakistan and with its neighbours and near neighbours, adding that Pakistan had to respect this.
Comments by Senator Haji Adil were more in tune with those of the Afghan panellists. He agreed that certain Pakistani circles had been interfering in Afghanistan.
Past media cooperation
With some exceptions, there have previously been few interactions and little collaboration between the Afghan and Pakistani media outlets and journalists. While Afghanistan's Tolonews and the Pashto-language Shamshad TV channels have correspondents in Pakistan, the latter has no reporter in Afghanistan.
But this seems to be changing slowly.
In June 2012, top-rated Tolo TV, a sister channel of Tolonews, premiered Pakistan's highly successful Coke Studio music programmes. Tolo officials said that the exclusive broadcasts were part of their commitment to encourage
cooperation and collaboration among Pakistani and Afghan artists and musicians. [2]
In October 2012, Tolonews hosted a studio debate in Kabul with 25 journalists from Afghanistan and Pakistan on hot topics affecting the region, including the countries' media laws and coverage of regional issues. [3]
In December 2012, some 50 journalists from Pakistan and Afghanistan participated at a three-day media conference in the Peshawar city of Pakistan. The conference urged the participants to refrain from glorifying violence and militancy and instead to promote peace, economic development and prosperity in both countries. [4]
Afghan channels not allowed in Pakistan
Some Pakistani channels, such as AVT Khyber and Geo TV, are available through cable operators in Afghanistan. On the other hand, in spite of efforts by Afghanistan, Pakistan's media regulator, Pemra, has refused landing rights for Afghan TV channels.
"The negative images of Pakistan shown by Afghan or Indian media are detrimental to Pakistan... we cannot bring foreign media to Pakistan without clearance from security and intelligence agencies," said a former Pemra chief. [5
But Afghanistan's ambassador to Pakistan, Omar Daudzai, hopes that this may change. He says the two countries are working on a Memorandum of Understanding to begin an era of cooperation in the field of media with hopes that it would help bring the neighbours closer to each other. [6]
Media affiliations
Tolonews and leading Dari-language Tolo TV and are part of Afghanistan's burgeoning Moby Group. The group also owns Pashto-language Lemar TV, popular Radio Arman and Radio Arakozia. The group also owns the Dubai-based Farsi-language channels Farsi1 and Zemzemeh.
Express News is part of one of Pakistan's leading media groups which owns a number of TV channels and newspapers in Urdu, English and Sindhi, as well as online news services.
Notes:
[1] http://www.tolonews.com/en/miscellaneous-videos/9777-english-edition-af-pak-debate-across-the-border [English Edition]
[2] http://mobygroup.com/news-2012/346-coke-studio-in-afghanistan-exclusively-on-tolo-tv
[3] http://www.tolonews.com/en/ba-rewayate-digar/7958-ba-rewayate-digar-the-afghan-pakistan-journalist-debate-english-edition
[4] http://centralasiaonline.com/en_GB/articles/caii/features/pakistan/main/2012/12/13/feature-01
[5] http://tribune.com.pk/story/411892/the-future-of-pak-afghan-media-cooperation/
[6] http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-6-116320-Pakistan-Afghanistan-working-on-MoU-for-media-cooperation
Source: BBC Monitoring research 14 Mar 13
BBC Mon MD1 Media FMU SA1 SAsPol mn/ch
U.S. drone strikes violate Pakistan's sovereignty: U.N.
By Louis Charbonneau
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States has violated Pakistan's sovereignty and shattered tribal structures with unmanned drone strikes in its counterterrorism operations near the Afghan border, a U.N. human rights investigator said in a statement on Friday.
U.N. special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Emmerson, visited Pakistan for three days this week as part of his investigation into the civilian impact of the use of drones and other forms of targeted killings.
"As a matter of international law, the U.S. drone campaign in Pakistan is ... being conducted without the consent of the elected representatives of the people, or the legitimate Government of the State," Emmerson said in a statement issued by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva.
"It involves the use of force on the territory of another state without its consent and is therefore a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty," he said.
Emmerson said in January he would investigate 25 drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories. He is expected to present his final report to the U.N. General Assembly in October.
Washington had little to say about Emmerson's statement.
"We've seen his press release. I'm obviously not going to speak about classified information here," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said. "We have a strong ongoing counterterrorism dialogue with Pakistan and that will continue."
Spokesman Josh Earnest said the White House would withhold judgment until it sees Emmerson's full report.
"We have a solid working relationship with them (Pakistan) on a range of issues, including a close cooperative security relationship, and we're in touch with them on a regular basis on those issues."
'END MILITARY INTERFERENCE'
Emmerson said the Pashtun tribes of northwestern Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA, Pakistan's largely lawless region bordering Afghanistan, have been decimated by the counterterrorism operations.
"These proud and independent people have been self-governing for generations, and have a rich tribal history that has been too little understood in the West," he said. "Their tribal structures have been broken down by the military campaign in FATA and by the use of drones in particular."
The tribal areas have never been fully integrated into Pakistan's administrative, economic or judicial system. They are dominated by ethnic Pashtun tribes, some of which have sheltered and supported militants over decades of conflict in neighboring Afghanistan.
Clearing out militant border sanctuaries is seen by Washington as crucial to bringing stability to Afghanistan, particularly as the U.S.-led combat mission ends in 2014.
Most, but not all, attacks with unmanned aerial vehicles have been by the United States. Britain and Israel have also used them, and dozens of other countries are believed to possess the technology.
"It is time for the international community to heed the concerns of Pakistan, and give the next democratically elected government of Pakistan the space, support and assistance it needs to deliver a lasting peace on its own territory without forcible military interference by other states," Emmerson said.
The U.N. Human Rights Council asked Emmerson to start an investigation of the drone attacks following requests by countries including Pakistan, Russia and China.
Criticism of drone strikes centers on the number of civilians killed and the fact that they are launched across sovereign states' borders so frequently, far more than conventional attacks by piloted aircraft.
Retired U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, who devised the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, warned in January against overusing drones, which have provoked angry demonstrations in Pakistan.
Civilian casualties from drone strikes have angered local populations and created tension between the United States and Pakistan and Afghanistan. Washington has sought to portray civilian casualties as minimal, but groups collecting data on these attacks say they have killed hundreds of civilians.
(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria and Roberta Rampton in Washington; Editing by Doina Chiacu)
India and US share same goal in Afghanistan: Victoria Nuland
By MIRWAIS ADEEL - 15 Mar 2013, 9:32 am Khaama Press
US officials praised India’s constructive role in Afghanistan and said both Washington and New Delhi share the same goal in war-torn nation.
US Department of State spokesman Victoria Nuland praising India’s support in the rebuilding of Afghanistan said both New Delhi and Washington share the same goal in the war-torn nation.
She said, “We certainly have the same goal, which is an Afghanistan that can secure itself and that can have a prosperous, stable future, can be a good neighbour to India and everybody else in its region.”
India’s extended financial support to Afghanistan to Afghanistan was also appreciated by United States.
Nuland said, “India is providing a lot of support for police and other economic assistance to Afghanistan.
She also added the two countries support a peaceful, stable and secure Afghanistan.
U.S, Afghanistan to spend $249 million on counternarcotic, other programs
By CNN Staff March 14, 2013
Afghan and U.S. government officials formalized agreements Thursday for the spending of $249 million for joint counternarcotic, legal and law enforcement programs in the Southeast Asian nation.
U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Stephen G. McFarland and Afghan Deputy Foreign Minister Jawid Ludin signed the agreements, the U.S. State Department announced.
Among other projects, the funds will aim to promote "better governance in improving the administration of justice and enhanced rule of law, continuing the development of a safe, secure and humane corrections system; and increasing security through curtailment of the narcotics trade," the department said in a release.
Legal assistance bureaus will be set up with this money, and "violence against women" units will be established.
A chief focus is to bolster "drug demand-reduction programs in Afghanistan," as well as to reduce or eliminate poppy cultivation, the State Department said. The opium poppy can be used to make heroin and other drugs, and is considered a staple of insurgent funding.
Afghan Senator Opens Religious Learning Centre in Nangarhar
TOLOnews.com Thursday, 14 March 2013
A centre for religious studies has been opened in eastern Afghanistan in the hope that more Afghans will stay inside the country for such an education instead of going to Pakistan.
The senator who on Thursday opened the centre in eastern Nangarhar province said that Afghan children are going to Pakistan to get their religious education but they come back as insurgents and suicide bombers.
"With every day bringing suicide attacks and explosions, we decided to build a religious center here in order for our children and youth to get an Islamic education instead of going to neighboring countries where insurgency and military education was being taught" senator Lotfullah Baba said.
Lack of religious centers in the country obliges Afghan children to go Pakistan, he said.
Baba built the centre worth around Afs 15 million in the Hesar-e-Shahi district of the province.
"The centre already has 300 students... in the future we aim to attract 2000 students here ," Baba said.
Nangarhar shares a border with Pakistan which is why so many residents go there for a religious education.
Local officials have said that the residents wouldn't go to Pakistan if the government helped with more learning opportunities inside Afghanistan.
Roshan to Rollout 3G and Bring High Speed Data Services to the Country
Khaama Press By Khushnood Nabizada 15 Mar 2013
Roshan, today announced it has secured funding from the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank Group, to support the rollout of the company’s 3G and high speed data services throughout the country. IFC will provide Roshan debt financing for the amount of $65 million. This most recent injection of capital from IFC will enable Roshan to continue to expand its infrastructure and provide the highest quality network and services to its six million customers. Since Roshan was founded in 2003, it has concluded three earlier rounds of financing totaling almost $200 million. All of these previous loans have been fully paid on schedule.
A decade ago when Roshan began its operations, less than 100,000 people had access to mobile telecommunications. To date, the company has invested more than $550 million in infrastructure to create a state-of-the-art, high quality, network that provides coverage to over 65 percent of the population in 230 cities and towns in all of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. Today, Roshan’s customers not only have access to basic voice services, but can also access the internet, social media channels, and additional value added services including mobile banking. Roshan currently offers high-speed data services that are available nationwide and 3G will further complement the existing network infrastructure and provide faster access to services.
“In just a short period of time, the Afghan telecommunications market has grown rapidly and Roshan spearheaded that development. The ability to speak to one another is a basic human need and over ten years, Roshan has played an integral role in achieving this milestone. Now we are ready to lead the broadband revolution for Afghanistan’s next generation,” Karim Khoja, Roshan, Chief Executive Officer, said. “Apart from providing even faster speed and access for our customers, 3G’s enhanced connectivity enables greater access to vital, quality telecommunications that stimulate social and economic development in a host of sectors such as healthcare, education and finance. This will allow Roshan to build on our telemedicine, e-education and mobile banking applications that are already helping to develop and fast-track the country’s infrastructure,” Khoja added.
“As we have seen in countless places, the ability to communicate is vital for economic development,” said Mouayed Makhlouf, IFC Director for the Middle East and North Africa. “This agreement will help bring the internet to the doorstep of Afghans, opening up a world of possibilities.”
One of Roshan’s main goals is to be a catalyst for socio-economic development and harnessing the power of telecommunications to bring about measureable change in Afghanistan. In 2007 Roshan started its Telemedicine project linking the French Medical Institute for Children (FMIC) in Kabul to the Aga Khan University Hospital in Karachi (AKUH). Since then, the Telemedicine Project has expanded to include Bamiyan Hospital (2010) and Faizabad Hospital (2011) to deliver remote medical care, diagnosis, treatment and training to populated and isolated areas of the country. With the addition of 3G, this will spur even further development and greater connectivity to those areas that need it the most.
IFC, a member of the World Bank Group is the largest global development institution focused exclusively on the private sector. We help developing countries achieve sustainable growth by financing investment, mobilizing capital in international financial markets, and providing advisory services to businesses and governments. In the fiscal year 2012, our investments reached an all-time high of more than $20 billion, leveraging the power of the private sector to create jobs, spark innovation, and tackle the world’s most pressing development challenges.
Zabul Residents Promise to Ban Poppy for Work
TOLOnews.com By Faridullah Sahil Thursday, 14 March 2013
Residents of Zabul province gathered on Thursday in the provincial capital Qalat and called for an end to poppy cultivation.
Most of the residents at the gathering pledged that they will not allow anyone to cultivate poppy in Zabul Province, and if anyone does they will be handed over to the law.
In exchange, the residents called on the government to provide them with work opportunities, particularly for the young people in the province.
"Drugs are all banned in Islam and what we are cultivating we should ban that," one the residents said.
The Zabul provincial governor Mohammad Ashraf Nasiri praised the residents' commitment and said that the government will do all it can to solve their problems.
"Last year a number of students in Zabul was 60,000, but this year we will try to raise this number to 100,000 students," Nasiri said.
The Zabul residents warned that if employment opportunities for Zabul residents do not improve, problems will increase in the province.
It comes as Afghanistan again topped the list of the world's biggest narcotics producers with drug smugglers using a route through India more than in previous years, according to a US State Department report.
The annual report on global trends in the illegal narcotics trade confirmed that Afghanistan retains its position as the world's top opiate producer.
It also said that the drugs smuggled in 2012 through India from Afghanistan are increasing via Pakistan.
According to the Afghan Ministry of Counter Narcotics, poppy cultivation in Afghanistan increased 18 percent from 2011 to 2012, but drug production dropped 40 percent mainly because of the government's poppy eradication drive whereby government and security forces physically destroy farmers' poppy crops.
Most of Afghanistan's poppy cultivation happens in the south and west areas of Afghanistan, both for its suitable climate and in areas where security is more lax.
Land-Grabbing Commission Set Up to Investigate Reports
TOLOnews.com Thursday, 14 March 2013
Afghanistan's senate has set up a commission to address the problem of land grabbing in the country amid reports of powerful figures taking control of large tracts of land.
"The Senate and the land disputes resolution commission promises to do its best against land grabbing by powerful figures and it will soon share its achievements with the Afghan people ," Senator Nesar Ahmad Harris said Wednesday.
The Land Disputes Resolution Commission accused high-ranking government officials and relatives of those in power of claiming land that was not their own. They warned they would soon disclose the names of all land grabbers.
"The lands are being [illegally] claimed mostly by the president's relatives and vice presidents relatives," Senator Haji Mohammad Naaem Popal said.
Kabul's Police Headquarters said that land grabbers would be arrested by police.
"If they are recognised, we will proceed to arrest them and hand them over to higher authorities ," Deputy of Kabul Police Mohammad Daoud Amin said.
The problem of land grabbing has been happening for a decade with around 4 million acres believed to have been wrongly claimed.
It comes as Nangarhar's provincial council and residents on Wednesday voiced their concerns over the increase of land grabbing in the province.
Council members said that recently a person has claimed Amanullah Khan garden in Jalalabad city after having introduced himself as Amanullah Khan's family attorney.
"We can't tolerate land grabbing here in our province. We ask government to stop them otherwise we will have a big disaster ," Nangarhar provincial council member Abdul Basir Gulab said.
Nangarhar Governor Gul Agha Shirzai said that Amanullah Khan garden is government property.
"Amanullah Khan garden is government property. Nobody has the right to claim it," he said.
The governor and residents asked the central government to avoid land grabbing in the province otherwise they threatened to start demonstrating over the issue.
www.afghanistannewscenter.com