[Afghan News] May 3, 2013

[یاسمینه]

Afghan Government Faces Cash Crunch
New York Times By MATTHEW ROSENBERG May 2, 2013
KABUL, Afghanistan - The Afghan government is supposed to cover less than half its own bills this year, yet achieving even that modest goal is proving an unexpected challenge, Afghan and Western officials said.

A confidential assessment of Afghan finances by the International Monetary Fund said the potentially severe cash crunch was caused by widespread tax evasion abetted by government officials, the increasing theft of customs revenues by provincial governors and softening economic growth.

The I.M.F. assessment, which has not been publicly released but was described by American and European diplomats who were recently briefed on its findings, estimated that Afghan revenue in the first quarter of the year was roughly 20 percent to 30 percent short of an informal target the fund had set for the government.

After a decade of steadily growing tax and customs revenue, the budget shortfall has caught Afghanistan’s international backers by surprise. Diplomats portrayed it as an unwelcome reminder that the Afghan government remains weak and corrupt — and years away from being able to pay its own expenses.

If the trend is not reversed, diplomats said, the Afghan government will be unable to pay salaries by midsummer, though Finance Minister Omar Zakhilwal disputed that assessment. He put the shortfall at no more than 20 percent.

No one here expects the Afghan government to actually run out of money. It is supposed to cover about 40 percent of its nonsecurity spending this year, projected to total roughly $5 billion, and it could raise money by cracking down on tax evaders or imposing new fees for services.

As a last resort, international donors could always fill the gap. They already pay nearly the entire cost of Afghanistan’s police force and army, and have agreed to cover roughly 60 percent of the government’s other spending this year.

For now, fear of instability still trumps the desire for good governance among Western donors, and aid commitments are likely to hold through the end of the NATO combat mission in 2014, diplomats said.

But the looming cash crunch comes at a delicate time. Kabul is negotiating a long-term security deal with the United States and is looking for other Western countries to make good on aid pledges that amount to tens of billions of dollars after 2014.

Smaller countries with little or no military commitment here are especially likely to reassess their aid spending at that point, diplomats said.

If Afghan officials “don’t have the confidence in their own country to find a way to pay for it themselves, then why should we?” said a European diplomat from one of those smaller countries. The diplomat and others spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid angering Afghan officials.

For President Hamid Karzai, who has been pushing for greater control of Afghanistan’s affairs, the revenue problem strikes at a more fundamental issue: a country that cannot pay for itself is not its own master.

“Let us be honest,” Bernard Bajolet, the recently departed French ambassador, said at a farewell cocktail party. “Sovereignty won’t be effective as long as Afghanistan won’t be fully self-reliant financially.”

Afghanistan, to be sure, has made huge economic strides since 2001, and the signs of growing prosperity abound. Dozens of international flights a week arrive in Kabul, late-model cars crowd the congested streets of the capital, and cellphones have largely replaced the hand-held satellite phones that just over a decade ago were the sole way to make a call.

But the country will nonetheless need billions in financial aid through 2032 to cover its nonsecurity spending, never mind to pay for its army and police force, according to another I.M.F. review that was released in February.

American and European officials rarely speak of horizons that long. The current aid pledges for nonsecurity spending, which are contingent on the Afghan government combating corruption, run only through 2016 — it is 2018 for security spending — with only vague assurances of what will come afterward.

“I’m not sure that Mr. Karzai or Mr. Zakhilwal should be walking into a bank with promises, not if Afghans aren’t going to pay,” said another European official who deals with financial matters. “This matters to us.”

Mr. Zakhilwal, the finance minister, said he was confident the government would get its finances in order. In an e-mail, he attributed the shortfall largely to a shift in the start of the Afghan fiscal year to Dec. 21 from March 21, which resulted in people overpaying taxes last year.

The shifting fiscal year also accounts for why Afghan and European officials are measuring revenue against a target rather than comparing the numbers with the same quarter from previous years.

Slowing economic growth contributed to the revenue shortfall as well, Mr. Zakhilwal said, blaming the international news media for offering a “negative analysis” of what will happen after 2014.

That coverage, reflected in the Afghan news media, “has caused nervousness and has affected trade and business activities,” he said.

American and European officials said the shifting fiscal year and weakening confidence are certainly part of the problem.

But the economy grew by 12 percent last year, and many Afghans who should be paying large tax bills, especially wealthy businessmen, are closely linked to senior officials and political figures. An American official described them as the “untouchables,” saying they rarely pay their full tax bill.

The presidential election slated for next April further complicates matters. Cracking down on tax evasion is that much tougher in an election year; the business elite, for instance, finances campaigns.

Then there are customs revenues, which account for about half of Afghan government revenues. They “are declining, not increasing, due to the diversion of part of them,” said Mr. Bajolet, the former French ambassador. He did not elaborate.

But American and European officials said it was because of election year political jockeying. Some governors of provinces with lucrative border crossings are positioning themselves for presidential runs, and others are looking to help finance top contenders, they said. Customs revenues are an easy way to fill their war chests.

In his e-mail, Mr. Zakhilwal tacitly acknowledged the corruption, and called the revenue numbers a “blessing in disguise” that has allowed him to take politically perilous corrective measures.

He said 34 customs officials have been replaced “with more reputable, reform-minded and serious individuals. This is the biggest change in any single Afghan ministry in the past 12 years.”

He also said Finance Ministry officials were under orders to more strictly enforce tax and customs rules, and the cabinet decided last month to fire any official caught abetting tax evasion or stealing customs duties.

A senior official has yet to be fired.

Alissa J. Rubin contributed reporting.


Reported channeling of CIA money to Afghanistan causing concerns among Afghans
by Abdul Haleem
KABUL, May 3 (Xinhua) -- The report that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has secretly channeled money to the Afghanistan government has caused concerns among Afghans who believed that this is against the national interest of the country.

"The act of giving money by the CIA, if true, is illegal since this could influence the government into giving concessions to a foreign power," said Kabul University professor and political analyst Faizullah Jalal.

Jalal told Xinhua that the CIA fund, which he termed as "ghost money", promotes the culture of corruption and could be used to buy the loyalty of lawmakers, ministers and other influential figures in Afghan society.

In its issue of April 28, the influential U.S. newspaper, The New York Times, claimed that the CIA has handed over millions of U. S. dollars to the Afghanistan government for more than a decade now.

According to the report, the money had been packed in suitcases and dropped off every month at a designated government center.

The money may be used to beef up the Afghan security apparatus in the fight against the Taliban and other armed insurgents in the country.

However, Jalal said the CIA funds could also be used for other purposes aside from strengthening security facilities, such as in bribing warlords, opposition politicians and even the Taliban in order to get their support for some controversial measures such as the proposed security pact with the United States.

The Karzai government and the United States are now crafting a security pact that would allow limited American military presence in the country after the pullout of the NATO-led foreign forces from Afghanistan next year.

According to Jalal, it is not the first time that Afghanistan has received cash from a foreign intelligence organization. Providing cash to the Kabul government by British intelligence agency MI6 has also been reported by British newspaper the Guardian.

Karzai has acknowledged receiving money from the Islamic Republic of Iran but insisted that this was spent for palace expenditures.

Zalmaik Zabuli, a member of Mushrano Jirga, the upper house of the Afghan Parliament, said that President Karzai "should at least tell the nation where the CIA funds have been spent."

In their editorials, Afghan newspapers on Tuesday also called on the government to level up with the people on where the CIA money went.

"Afghan leaders need to remain committed to their constitutional and moral obligations and safeguard the national interests of Afghanistan," the English daily The Afghanistan Express said in its editorial.


A Border Clash Stirs Emotions in Afghanistan
New York Times By ROD NORDLAND May 2, 2013
KABUL, Afghanistan - Afghan forces claimed on Thursday that they had overrun and destroyed a Pakistani-held border crossing in a remote area, an event that provoked a spontaneous outpouring of nationalist sentiment here, sending thousands of students into the streets to demonstrate and setting off lively debate on social networking sites.

A funeral for Qasim Khan, an Afghan border policeman who was the only confirmed victim of the clash, turned into a patriotic rally. An ambulance pressed into service as a hearse to carry Mr. Khan’s body from Jalalabad to his home village in rural Nangarhar Province was strewn with flowers, and mourners declared a victory over Pakistan. Nearly 200 miles away in Gardez, a city in Paktia Province, Mr. Khan was hailed as a national hero by marching crowds of students who beat drums and chanted anti-Pakistan slogans.

A Facebook page was started by Afghan supporters to campaign for Mr. Khan to be posthumously awarded the rank of general.

A spokesman for the Afghan Border Police unit in eastern Nangarhar Province said troops from the unit burned the post at the border crossing in fighting that began Wednesday night and finished early Thursday morning. They also took back five Afghan police posts that had been occupied by Pakistani forces, he said. Afghan officials have said Pakistan built the crossing without Afghan approval, and it was one of several that President Hamid Karzai had publicly complained about last month.

The border police spokesman, speaking on the condition of anonymity in line with his agency’s policy, said there were unconfirmed reports that nine Pakistani militiamen had been killed in the clash, which took place in the Goshta district.

However, Pakistani government officials said only two of their frontier constabulary officers were wounded in what a Foreign Ministry statement described as an “unprovoked firing incident” started by the Afghans, to which the Pakistani side reacted with “maximum restraint.” An Afghan member of Parliament from the Goshta district, Friadon Momand, said he had heard that the border crossing had not been destroyed and was still operating.

“We are not the aggressors, they are the ones provoking and fanning these clashes,” said Maj. Gen. Gul Nabi Ahmadzia, the Afghan Border Police commander in charge of the operation. “While we are waiting for our politicians to take action and decide what to do, we showed that Afghans are not incapable of protecting their country.”

Whoever was to blame, the operation aroused an unusual degree of reaction, especially among young Afghans, in contrast to their apathy over actions by their army and police forces in clashes with Afghan insurgents.

“An Afghan Border Police officer died last night fighting Pakistanis,” read a Facebook post attributed to Sohrab Sharifi. “Afghans enraged and showed emotions. But now eight Afghan local policemen killed by (Sons of Pakistan) Taliban, all will remain silent.”

Mr. Sharifi was referring to reports that eight Afghan Local Police officers were killed on Thursday morning by a roadside bomb that blew up as their truck passed by in the village of Pashtunabad in Logar Province.

Abdul Wali Wakil, the chairman of the Logar Provincial Council, said the officers had just graduated from a training program run by American Special Forces soldiers and had just been brought by the Americans to their assignment in the area.

“I have personally warned the provincial governor and provincial police chief about the potential threat in the area, but they ignored my advice,” he said.

The governor of Logar, Arsala Jamal, said the area of that attack was normally under full government control. “However, there are some individuals who are creating some minor problems for us every now and then,” he said.

In an unrelated episode in western Afghanistan, another Afghan Local Police unit was attacked by the Taliban, and 18 policemen were captured and taken prisoner in the Ghormach district of Faryab Province, according to Ajmal Wardak, the deputy commander of the 209th Afghan National Army Corps, which is responsible for the area.

The attack took place Tuesday but was not reported until Thursday. Another official in Faryab, Rahmatullah Turkistani, head of the provincial council, said he understood that 40 local policemen had been captured by the insurgents.

The border clash in Nangarhar Province comes after months of complaints by Afghan authorities about cross-border shelling and control of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. In addition, Afghan political leaders, including Mr. Karzai, have greatly stepped up their anti-Pakistan talk lately, blaming their neighbor for supporting insurgents and hindering efforts at peace talks.

On Facebook and Twitter, many Afghans called for further demonstrations after Friday Prayer.

The border clash came a day after the reopening of the major crossing between Afghanistan and Pakistan, at Torkham on the Grand Trunk Road between Kabul and Peshawar. It had been closed for two days after a fistfight between Afghan and Pakistani border guards over the Pakistanis’ refusal to let an Afghan woman enter without a visa.

Pakistan closed the crossing for two days until the Afghans apologized. According to Col. Enayatullah Abdullah, an Afghan Border Police official at Torkham, four Afghan patients died waiting at the crossing to go to hospitals in Pakistan.

Mr. Karzai has repeatedly raised the long-festering issue of the Durand Line, which forms the border between the two countries and was established by the British. The line divides traditionally Pashtun tribal areas on both sides of the border; Pashtuns are Afghanistan’s largest ethnic group, and they predominate among the Taliban insurgents.

Sangar Rahimi contributed reporting from Kabul; an Afghan employee of The New York Times from Jalalabad, Afghanistan; and Salman Masood from Islamabad, Pakistan.


9 bombs defused in E. Afghan operations: ISAF
KABUL, May 3 (Xinhua) -- Afghan forces and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops have found and defused nine Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in eastern Afghan provinces, said the ISAF forces on Friday.

"Afghan National Security and Coalition Forces detained two suspected insurgents and found and safely cleared nine improvised explosive devices during operations in eastern Afghanistan throughout the past 24 hours," the ISAF's Regional Command-East said in a statement.

The two suspects were captured in Khost and Wardak province, the statement said, adding the home-made IEDs were defused in Laghman, Logar, Nangarhar, Paktika, Wardak and Khost province.

The IEDs used in making suicide jackets and roadside bombs have proved a challenge for Afghan and some 100,000 NATO-led forces in the insurgency-hit country, as they are simple but difficult to be detected.

The Taliban, which has been waging an insurgency of more than one decade, has yet to make comments.

The Taliban-led insurgency has been rampant since the militant group launched an annual rebel offensive in late last month against Afghan government forces and the NATO-led troops stationed in the country.


Karzai Urges Obama To Close Guantanamo
May 2, 2013 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has again called for the United States to close down its detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Karzai was speaking to journalists on May 2 during a visit to Denmark.

He said Kabul has asked the United States to release the Afghan prisoners being held at Guantanamo, saying Afghanistan has been "engaged" with both Washington and the UN on the issue for several years.

About 100 of the 166 prisoners at Guantanamo are currently on a hunger strike.

Karzai urged the United States to apply "humanitarian considerations" in dealing with the protest.

U.S. President Barack Obama pledged during his first presidential campaign to close the facility but has not been able to do so.

Based on reporting by Reuters, AFP, and AP


Afghan interpreters begin legal bid for right to live in Britain
By Costas Pitas
LONDON (Reuters) - Three men who worked as interpreters for British forces in Afghanistan began a legal challenge on Friday to win the right to live in Britain, arguing they are at risk of Taliban reprisals as the soldiers they helped prepare to return home.

They are challenging the British government's decision to refuse them the support offered to interpreters in Iraq, who were offered the right to indefinite leave to enter or settle in Britain or instead a compensation package.

The outcome of the case could affect the fate of about 500 other Afghan interpreters who have worked for British forces.

Britain's 9,000 combat troops in Afghanistan are due to leave the country by the end of 2014, with nearly half of them expected to pull out this year, ending a war that has lasted over a decade and cost the lives of nearly 450 British troops.

The three Afghans say that despite being resettled several times within Afghanistan, they have still been tracked down by the Taliban, who were toppled by the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.

The say their lives are at risk, as well as the lives of their friends and families.

British Prime Minister David Cameron wants to offer interpreters who worked for British forces support to stay in Afghanistan and has said officials are drawing up an offer to encourage them to stay and help rebuild the country.

A petition of nearly 80,000 signatures was handed into Britain's Foreign Office on Friday calling for Afghan interpreters to be offered asylum.

Supporters include former Lib Dems party leader and ex-Royal Marine Paddy Ashdown. "We leave Afghanistan having paid a terrible price. We should not add dishonour to it," Ashdown told Reuters.

"It would be act of dishonour for us to leave Afghanistan without ensuring that they have at very least a choice between a large sum of money ... or the chance to make sure that they and their families are not killed when we leave."

The three interpreters have issued a claim at the High Court in London challenging the government's decision not to treat them in the same way as Iraqi interpreters.

The government has three weeks to decide whether to agree to the interpreters' demand or dispute it. If it disputes it, the court would decide whether to review the government's policy.

(Reporting By Costas Pitas; Editing by Pravin Char)


Taliban told to distance itself from al-Qaida before it opens Qatar office
Qatari goverment lays down conditions for Doha base with backing of Afghanistan and US
Guardian.co.uk, By Julian Borger, diplomatic editor Thursday 2 May 2013
The Taliban has been told to issue a declaration distancing itself from al-Qaida and committing itself to peace talks before it can open a political office in Qatar, according to diplomatic sources.

The conditions have been laid down by the Qatari government with the backing of Kabul and the US. They would involve making an unambiguous public break with global jihadism and promising to use the office in the capital city of Doha as a base for negotiations with the US and the Afghan government, rather than as the seat of a government in exile or for fundraising.

At a three-way meeting outside Brussels last week – attended by Afghan president Hamid Karzai – the US secretary of state, John Kerry, asked Pakistan's army commander, General Ashfaq Kayani, to demonstrate his stated support for peace talks by putting pressure on the Pakistan-based Taliban to make the declaration.

David Cameron made the same appeal to Kayani at Chequers in February, hoping to build on the general's public statements that Pakistan saw the continuing insurgency not as a hedge against Indian influence, but as a direct threat to its own national interests.

But the Pakistani delegation told British officials that Islamabad's influence over the Taliban was far from absolute. The government is said to fear an outcome in which the Taliban fragments, with moderate elements returning to Afghanistan and extremists staying behind in Pakistan.

The Taliban sent representatives to Doha last year with the aim of pursuing talks with the US, but the peace process stalled over a failure to agree terms for the release of five Afghan insurgent commanders held at Guantánamo Bay.

President Barack Obama's restated commitment this week to close the prison camp has revived hopes that releases could be back on the table, but it is far from clear whether the Taliban would accept conditions it rejected last year, including the pledge that the prisoners released would stay in Doha, under Qatari supervision.

Michael Semple, a former EU envoy in Afghanistan with long experience of dialogue with the Taliban, said: "The consequence of Taliban grandstanding has been to leave their comrades in Guantánamo for another year. Ultimately, Taliban supporters will have to make a decision whether they are ready to engage in a political track or not."

Semple, now at the Carr Centre for Human Rights at the Harvard Kennedy School, pointed out that the start of a new fighting season in Afghanistan illustrated the fact that there were still powerful voices in the Taliban opposed to talks, either because they still believed a military victory was possible once Nato withdraws combat troops by the end of next year or because they thought conditions would be more favourable for their bargaining position next year. "The ball is now in the Taliban court on whether to pursue a political process," he said.

"If they decide not to, the onus will be on them to explain it to the young men who risk getting blown up in the new fighting season. The excuse before was they were fighting to end foreign occupation. Now they are being told to risk their lives so their leaders can become ministers.".

However, there are signs the Taliban leadership remains interested in keeping the dialogue going. It sent two senior representatives to off-the-record international meetings at Chantilly, outside Paris. The chief delegate at the latest such gathering in December, Maulvi Shahabuddin Dilawar, began the meeting by publicly insisting his movement would not negotiate with the Karzai government, which it portrays as a western puppet – but he did speak informally in Chantilly to Massoom Stanekzai, appointed by Karzai as the head of the secretariat of a council to pursue talks.

Official Taliban statements now accept girls' rights to education and women's right to work. Furthermore, diplomats say Tayyab Agha, a Mullah Omar confidant who took part in exploratory talks with American officials last year, has remained in Doha as part of a Taliban negotiating team, despite reports he had been forced out by Taliban hawks for failing to secure the release of the Guantánamo five.

Alex Strick van Linschoten, the co-author of several books on the Taliban, said: "Even if nothing concrete comes out of these talks, it's still immensely valuable to keep up this regular interaction and have an open line of communication."


Explainer: What Lies Behind Latest Afghan-Pakistani Tensions?
By Frud Bezhan May 2, 2013 Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Afghanistan's ties with its neighbor Pakistan have become severely strained lately, with both sides engaging in a war of words and cross-border violence.

At the forefront of those tensions is a long-standing dispute over the demarcation of their contested border.

The latest controversy involves a border outpost, a checkpoint, and other installations recently built by Pakistan. The facilities were constructed along the edge of Goshta district, which is located in Afghanistan's eastern Nangarhar Province.

Kabul has demanded that Islamabad remove the installations, saying they encroach on Afghan territory. Pakistan counters that its new fortifications are on its side of the border.

The controversial border posts have rekindled the thorny issue of the Durand Line, a border agreed to by the British and Afghan Amir Abdur Rahman Khan in the late 19th century.

Pakistan, which shed its status as part of British India more than 65 years ago, considers the line to be an international border, as does the majority of the international community. But Afghanistan has never recognized the porous frontier, which cuts through the ethnic Pashtun heartland.

The simmering tensions boiled over on May 2, when Afghan border police in Goshta district opened fire and destroyed parts of the newly built installations. Afghan forces said they had noticed Pakistani troops starting additional work on the outpost, despite recent agreements to halt construction.

An Afghan border guard was reportedly killed and three others injured during a six-hour clash with Pakistani troops. Pakistani authorities said that two of its security personnel were wounded in the skirmish.

Blame Game

Each side has blamed the other for sparking the incident, which took place along a crucial battleground in the fight against Taliban and Al-Qaeda-linked militants that operate on both sides of the border.

In April, Afghan President Hamid Karzai ordered Afghan troops to "take immediate measures" to remove the installations near Goshta district. Karzai has maintained that activities by either side along the Durand Line must be approved by both countries.

An Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman has claimed that the post is up to 30 kilometers inside Afghan territory. He has suggested that "all options" are open in Kabul to ensure the installations are removed.

Karzai has directed his Foreign, Interior, and Defense ministries to ask for clarification from the U.S.-led coalition for "assisting and supporting Pakistan to build these installations," according to a statement from the president's office.

Abdul Karim Khurram, the president's chief of staff, revealed on April 29 that Karzai has sent a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama to seek his help in retaking nearly a dozen border posts the Afghan president's office believes Pakistani forces have unjustly occupied in the past decade.

Khurram said Karzai, who sent the letter on April 15, accused the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) of handing military posts it had built along the border over to Pakistani forces.

"When ISAF and coalition troops arrived in Afghanistan, they took these check posts and centers," the BBC and "Afghanistan Times" quoted Khurram as saying. "[The ISAF] paved the way for the Pakistani military to occupy these posts after they evacuated the posts. It shows some U.S. interference on the issue. Considering the U.S.-Afghan long-term strategic pact, Karzai sent a letter to Obama."

Mass Protests

The dispute in Nangarhar has led to mass protests against Pakistan. For the last few weeks, the streets of the provincial capital, Jalalabad, have been lined with demonstrators chanting anti-Pakistan slogans and demanding military action by the Afghan government.

Protesters have also demanded that Nangarhar Governor Gul Agha Sherzai, whom they have accused of treason, be dismissed immediately. The calls came after lawmakers said Sherzai failed to inform them of Pakistan's activity along the border and accused him of not doing enough to stop the construction of border installations.

In retaliation, Pakistan on April 30 closed its border crossing with Afghanistan along the highway linking Kabul and Islamabad. A Pakistani border official said the closure was ordered because an Afghan border guard fought with a Pakistani official.

That came a day after Islamabad tightened entry requirements in connection with Pakistan's May 11 general elections, ordering that only Afghans with valid documents be allowed to cross into Pakistan. Before the measure, crossing the border without travel documents was routine.

Afghan claims that Pakistan is trying to thwart efforts to begin reconciliation talks with the Taliban have also fueled souring relations.

Afghanistan has grown increasingly frustrated with Pakistan, saying Islamabad is not fulfilling its promises regarding the peace process. Kabul has suggested that Islamabad is seeking to keep Afghanistan unstable until foreign combat forces leave at the end of 2014.

Afghanistan has long accused Pakistan of providing sanctuary to Afghan insurgents on its soil. Pakistan denies this and says that Pakistani Taliban routinely seek shelter on the Afghan side of the border.


Afghanistan Is Not Ready to Take Over
A special inspector general discloses that as U.S. forces head for the exit, the Pentagon has not met its goal for enlarging the Afghan force left behind.
Richard H. P. SiaMay 3 2013, 9:00 AM ET The Atlantic
Since the United States first sent troops to Afghanistan in 2001, a signature goal of the war has been to increase the size of Afghan national security forces and give their members the skills to vanquish domestic terrorist groups and other security threats on their own.

But as the Obama administration prepares to pull 34,000 U.S. troops out of the country by February and most of the remaining troops by the end of 2014, estimates of the size of the Afghan force trained to take over this lead security role have suddenly grown fuzzy and possibly unreliable.

A new report this week by the government's top watchdog over U.S. spending in Afghanistan casts doubt on whether the U.S.-led coalition and the Afghan government has met a goal set in 2011 of enlisting and training a total of 352,000 Afghan security personnel by October 2012. Pentagon officials have said that target was meant to strike a balance between what is needed and what America and its allies can deliver in concert with the Afghan government.

The White House declared two months ago, in conjunction with the President's State of the Union address, that the goal had been attained. Afghan "forces are currently at a surge strength of 352,000, where they will remain for at least three more years, to allow continued progress toward a secure environment in Afghanistan," it said.

But on Tuesday, Special Inspector for Afghanistan Reconstruction John F. Sopko challenged this rosy assessment, which White House officials said was based on data supplied by the Pentagon.

"The goal to 'train and field' 352,000 Afghan National Security Forces by last October was not met." Sopko said in his latest quarterly report. Instead, as of Feb. 18, the number of personnel in the Afghan National Army, National Police and Air Force totaled 332,753, or about 20,000 fewer, according to data he said he collected from the Coalition-led transition command in Kabul.

Sopko said Afghan troop and police strength is actually declining, not rising - belying a longstanding goal of the U.S. intervention. There are now 4,700 fewer personnel than a year ago, he noted, drawing on the same data that the Pentagon routinely uses.

The discrepancy between the force size the White House has claimed and what the Afghans have actually been able to field is not a trivial one, Sopko's report suggested. "Accurate and reliable accounting for ANSF personnel is necessary to ensure that U.S. funds that support the ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] are used for legitimate and eligible costs," it said.

As a result, the discrepancy has triggered a wider audit by his organization into "the extent to which DOD [the Department of Defense] reviews and validates the information collected" from Afghan officials, Sopko said in the report. It will broadly assess "the reliability and usefulness" of what the Afghans - and the U.S. government - say about the force's size.

In a statement to the Center for Public Integrity, Sopko explained that "we are not implying that anyone is manipulating data. We are raising a concern that we don't have the right numbers. We appreciate how difficult it is to get the correct numbers -- but we need accurate numbers because we're using those numbers to pay ANSF salaries, supply equipment and so forth."

The financial stakes behind the numbers are huge. Sopko's report says Congress has appropriated more than $51 billion so far "to build, equip, train and sustain the Afghan National Security Forces."

But U.S. officials and watchdog groups have previously raised alarms about the existence of "ghost" personnel in the Afghan forces, whose salaries are still funded by Western aid but who quit the units to which they are assigned. The annual attrition rate for the Afghan army is nearly 30 percent, according to U.S. military commanders, provoking an enormous churn in the ranks that complicates accurate record-keeping.

Part of the problem, according to Sopko's report, is that Western officials have allowed "the Afghan forces to report their own personnel strength numbers," which are based on hand-written ledgers in "decentralized, unlinked and inconsistent systems." The Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan, which oversees the training effort, reported last year "there was no viable method of validating personnel numbers," the report added.

But U.S. officials have added to the confusion by adopting a new definition of what it means to be a member of the Afghan security force, loosening its terminology in a way that enlarges the ranks to include all those "recruited" rather than those actually trained and field-ready.

For example, the Defense Department's so-called Section 1230 reports, which track the progress of the war, including efforts to build an effective Afghan security force, said in April 2012 that "the ANSF are ahead of schedule to achieve the October 2012 end-strength of 352,000, including subordinate goals of 195,000 soldiers and 157,000 police."

But last December's Section 1230 report - the most recent progress report available -- changed the way it referred to the 352,000 figure. "The ANSF met its goal of recruiting a force of approximately 352,000 by October 1, 2012," the December report said. Some of these personnel were awaiting induction at training centers, said the report, adding that the Afghan army's recruits were not scheduled to be "trained, equipped, and fielded until December 2013."

Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford Jr., who in February took command of U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan from Marine Corps Gen. John Allen, used still different terminology during April 16 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said the Afghan government "has recruited and fielded most of its authorized strength of 352,000," a circumstance that he said enables it to "be responsible for security nationwide" in the near future.

The Pentagon is still working on its written response to the special inspector general's report. But a Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Bill Speaks, separately told the Center for Public Integrity that "fluctuation in overall strength of the ANSF due to recruitment and attrition is expected."

Speaks said recruitment targets were lowered last year to slow growth as Afghan forces approached "its force structure ceiling of 352,000. . . . Lower recruitment, coupled with several months of higher-than-average levels of attrition in the ANA [Afghan National Army], resulted in a net decrease."

He said ANSF end-strength rose to 336,365 in March, but added that the focus of the training mission now is on "the quality of the force; developing the right balance of seniority, skills and specialization," more than on the number of trainees.

Sopko's report attributed the decline partly to a decision last October to no longer include civilians in the official security force tally, such as those in the Afghanistan Ministry of Defense. But Speaks said Thursday that civilians continue to be counted, calling them "a necessary and integrated part" of the Afghan Army. He said an effort is underway to convert the jobs to the civil service system, and also that the Afghan reporting system "is increasingly moving from a paper-based system to a more automated one with new standards" and processes.

Despite the squishiness of the data, U.S. military officials have repeatedly cited the buildup in Afghan forces as the principal reason for declaring the 11-year war a success. "For the last few years, many people have shied away from using the word 'win,'" Dunford told the senators. "I personally have used that word since arriving in Afghanistan."

Sharing his optimism, Gen. Allen told Brookings Institution in March that Afghan security forces "turned out to be better than we thought, and they turned out better than they thought." During the ceremonial change of command in Kabul in February Allen said, "Afghan forces defending Afghan people and enabling the government of this country to serve its citizens. This is victory. This is what winning looks like."

US officials have long considered the ability of Afghan forces to fight without foreign help as critical to the Obama administration's exit strategy and pending decisions on how large of a residual force to leave in the county once most U.S. troops leave next year. There are 70,000 U.S. troops there now, of which 1,800 are assigned to the NATO training mission.

At last year's NATO summit in Chicago, Sopko noted in his report, countries contributing to coalition forces in Afghanistan agreed to set a goal of a 228,500-strong Afghan security force in 2017, which they considered more financially viable than any higher number. But the Obama administration rejected that suggestion and insisted that a force of 352,000 would give the U.S. military more flexibility and could be maintained through 2018.

Whether a force of even that size is enough to meet the West's ambitions remains controversial. On March 22, for example, the Pentagon's inspector general reported that the extensive U.S.-led coalition effort to develop the Afghan National Army's command-and-control capabilities, which are crucial in executing counterinsurgency operations on its own, "had produced a marginally sufficient" system.

The Afghan National Army "did not yet have the ability to plan and conduct sustained operations without U.S. and Coalition support," the DOD IG report said. "To date, the ANA had only been effective in conducting offensive operations of short duration . . . with heavy reliance on U.S. and Coalition support."

The IG's report credited both the Afghan army and police for demonstrating "initiative, coordination and resilience" in responding to insurgent attacks in Kabul on Aril 15, 2012. The actions by security forces "were encouraging and timely," the report said. But it warned that the progress "may be hampered or even reversed. . . if high-risk challenges are not properly addressed and resolved," including the removal of ineffective senior officers, an ability to use complex technology, and "the significant reliance on U.S. and Coalition enablers."

A Government Accountability Office report released in February said further that a claimed improvement in the effectiveness of Afghan security forces has been partly due to the lowering of standards by U.S.-led forces. In August 2011, U.S. military officials changed the highest possible rating for Afghan units from "independent," meaning they could operate without help from U.S. or coalition troops, to "independent with advisors," the GAO said.

The Pentagon acknowledged that the changes to the rating levels "were partly responsible for the increase in ANSF units rated at the highest level," GAO said.

The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit, independent investigative news outlet. For more of its stories on this topic go to publicintegrity.org.


Video appears to depict plane crash in Afghanistan
By Tom Watkins, CNN May 2, 2013
(CNN) -- U.S. transportation safety investigators arrived on Thursday in Afghanistan to try and help determine why a civilian operated Boeing 747 cargo jet crashed on takeoff from Bagram Air Base, killing all seven crew aboard.

Senior aviation investigator Tim LeBaron is leading a team from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that is working with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Boeing, which made the jumbo jet that crashed on Monday.

The safety board is an independent government agency that investigates transportation accidents in the United States and often assists foreign governments in major cases, especially in air crashes involving a plane made by an American manufacturer.

Afghanistan's transportation ministry is leading the probe, the safety board said in a statement.

A priority for crash investigators is to recover the jet's "black boxes," the flight data and cockpit voice recorders that could provide clues to a potential cause.

The final moments of the doomed plane appear to have been captured by a dashboard camera inside a vehicle that was in the area.

The approximately three-minute video shows what appears to be the jet starting its climb at 11:20 a.m. local time from the base.

About 12 seconds into the video, it appears to stall, rolls from side to side, and drops.

At 23 seconds, the plane crashes nose first into the ground off the side of the road, erupting into a ball of orange flame and black smoke.

There is no immediate reaction from inside the vehicle.

After the driver brings the vehicle equipped with the webcam to a halt, at 1:15 in the video, someone says, "Oh, f***!"

At 1:33, as the camera shows the vehicle moving once again, a noise can be heard -- possibly from a dog. Someone says, "All right, come here. Shh! Shh! Shh!"

The yelping stops; the vehicle stops.

At 2:13 in the video, the vehicle approaches the crash site and stops, the camera once again capturing thick black smoke. The video ends.

"That's one dramatic fall out of the sky," said Arthur Rosenberg, a pilot, engineer and partner with the New York-based law firm Soberman & Rosenberg, which specializes in litigation stemming from plane crashes. "It could have been a rock."

He added, "The plane just flat-out stalled. There's absolutely no question about that."

He said too much cargo in the rear of the plane is one of several possible causes.

"It looks to me like the plane pitched up; the most likely cause would be too much load in the rear," he said in a telephone interview. "The plane dropped below minimum controllable airspeed and started to roll."

But, he added, "It's way too early to tell."

CNN cannot confirm the video's authenticity. It bears the date 2013/02/01, but date stamps can easily be inaccurate.

Ill-fated Flight NCR102 was operated by National Airlines, which specializes in moving freight for the military and businesses. It also operates charter passenger service in the Middle East.

U.S.-based National Air Cargo, the parent of National Airlines, confirmed the crash. It said the flight originated at Camp Bastian, a military base in Afghanistan, and was en route to Dubai, United Arab Emirates. It had stopped to refuel at Bagram, landing uneventfully.

The cargo included five mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles being taken out of Afghanistan as part of the drawdown of U.S. forces, said Shirley Kaufman of National Air Cargo.

The vehicles, usually referred to as MRAPs, can weigh from 12 tons to 24 tons, depending on the model, according to a 2011 Congressional Research Service report.

That would mean a minimum of 60 tons, which is within its specifications, according to Boeing.

"Securing them is absolutely critical to safety," said Steven Wallace, former director of the FAA's Accident Investigation Unit. It's critical that the total weight be within the limit and that the plane be balanced, he said.

"When the airplane is rotated with the nose up, the cargo moves aft if it's not properly secured," he said.

National Air Cargo said the cargo was properly loaded and secured and had passed all necessary inspections prior to departing Camp Bastian. No additional cargo was added during the stop in Bagram and the aircraft's cargo was again inspected prior to departure.

The company would not speculate on a possible cause of the crash and said it was cooperating with investigators.

Six of the crash victims were from Michigan, National said. They were identified as Brad Hasler, Jeremy Lipka, Jamie Brokaw, Rinku Summan, Michael Sheets and Gary Stockdale.

The other victim, Timothy Garrett, was from Kentucky.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said his group shot down the aircraft and that "several foreign soldiers were killed."

That claim could not be verified. A number of Taliban claims of responsibility have proven false.

CNN's Barbara Starr, Mike Ahlers and Chris Lawrence contributed to this report


Look on the bright side: There’s a roaring heroin trade in Afghanistan, and it's all thanks to us
It just goes to show that, even in the most difficult circumstances, with a popular product and thoughtful marketing, there are always business opportunities
The Independent By Mark Steel Thursday 2 May 2013
At last, amid all the bleak news that comes from Afghanistan, there’s a success story to justify the British and American presence there.

Because one of the main aims of Western intervention in foreign affairs is to establish the sort of small-business, entrepreneurial spirit that can rescue a struggling economy. And according to the United Nations, there’s been another 18 per cent growth in the heroin trade, in just the past year.

It goes to show that, even in the most difficult circumstances, with a popular product and thoughtful marketing, there are always business opportunities for those with a flair for entrepreneurial vision. At the time of the initial invasion in 2001, Tony Blair insisted that one of the reasons for occupying Afghanistan was because “the Taliban are causing the deaths of young British people who buy their drugs on the streets”. But clearly some people misunderstood what Blair meant. They were saying that the Afghan heroin trade wasn’t fulfilling its potential, and with the right management they could treble it.

It will probably turn out Blair is getting £4m a year to sit on an advisory board to help them maximise growth. Spokesmen from companies with names like Kwik-Fix Global will appear on the business section of Sky News, explaining how their quarterly report reveals a 35 per cent rise in dividends, boasting about surveys that show that the Afghan brand earns positive feedback with 95 per cent of junkies, and hinting at diversification into other markets such as its own brand of needles so customers can enjoy the full Afghan warlord poppy experience.

Maybe the plan is that, by the time British troops leave, every district of Afghanistan has a thriving garden centre, where couples from Helmand province can potter around on a Sunday, arguing about which seeds will produce the most effective skag and enquiring about how to set up a poppy rockery.

Then there’ll be an Afghan Gardeners’ Question Time, with the audience asking: “This year, my poppy window-box became susceptible to mildew around springtime, so the opium was disappointingly soggy and hard to burn in the spoon. Has the panel any suggestions for how to prevent a recurrence?”

It could be claimed that the growth in heroin production would be even greater if the occupying forces hadn’t been in the country. But this would be to deny them the credit they’re due. Because it was also revealed this week that the office of Afghan leader Harmid Karzai has been regularly receiving envelopes stuffed with cash from the CIA, for the past 11 years. The New York Times reported that the money has come in “backpacks, suitcases and plastic bags”.

The allegations are denied by a Foreign Ministry spokesman, but Karzai explained the purpose of these payments was to “secure the support of those leaders who have been loyal”. One of the other reasons for the invasion, you may recall, was to stamp out corruption. That makes sense, because you can’t stamp out corruption without the support of honest, reliable officials, and you can’t expect them to stay honest and reliable for nothing so it makes sense to hand them envelopes stuffed with cash every couple of weeks.

The people the money has been handed to are local warlords, who won’t stay loyal unless they’re also allowed to carry on their legitimate business of growing poppies, so it all completes a neat business circle. To make it seem even more like a typical business arrangement, some of them have complained that the amount that the local farmers receive for their poppies is only 1 per cent of the eventual market value. You’d think that at least our Government would insist on an ethical poppy policy, encouraging dealers to pay a decent price so they could stand behind the bins on a council estate wearing a sticker saying “All our smack is Fairtrade”, next to a picture of a smiling warlord.

Once you add in the other reasons for occupying the place, the scale of the occupation’s success becomes even clearer. There was the Taliban’s “appalling record on human rights”, whereas Saudi Arabia, with which we’ve just concluded a £15bn arms deal, is just a constant hubbub of feminist this and lesbian that.

It is so liberal that it’s the only country where women get no extra penalty if they’re caught drinking and driving, as they get put in jail for either so they might as well do both at the same time. And the invasion was supposed to stop Afghanistan being a centre for al-Qa’ida, which has gone exceedingly well. Because now Afghanistan is only one place for the militant Islamist organisation, as they’ve grown in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Mali, and a variety of places where they didn’t exist before. Once they’ve taken control of Dorset County Council, I suppose the job will be complete.

When British and US forces first occupied Kabul in 2001, there was jubilation from those who’d supported the invasion, especially those who saw it as a humanitarian policy. Some day soon, I suppose they’ll accept it hasn’t all gone to plan as much as they thought. Or they might stick it out, following the Government’s line that we’re leaving because we’ve done an excellent job, and now the Afghans we’ve been giving stuffed envelopes to have learned enough from us that they can carry on from here.

If only Napoleon had thought of this tactic. He could have said: “Right, it’s all gone very well, but, if you Russians don’t mind, we’ve got other stuff to get on with, so you’re jolly well going to have to get on without us. Bye then, thanks for having us.”


Explainer: What Lies Behind Latest Afghan-Pakistani Tensions?
RFE/RL By Frud Bezhan Friday, May 03, 2013
May 02, 2013 Afghanistan's ties with its neighbor Pakistan have become severely strained lately, with both sides engaging in a war of words and cross-border violence.

At the forefront of those tensions is a long-standing dispute over the demarcation of their contested border.

The latest controversy involves a border outpost, a checkpoint, and other installations recently built by Pakistan. The facilities were constructed along the edge of Goshta district, which is located in Afghanistan's eastern Nangarhar Province.

Kabul has demanded that Islamabad remove the installations, saying they encroach on Afghan territory. Pakistan counters that its new fortifications are on its side of the border.

The controversial border posts have rekindled the thorny issue of the Durand Line, a border agreed to by the British and Afghan Amir Abdur Rahman Khan in the late 19th century.

READ NEXT: Afghan, Pakistani Troops Clash At Disputed Border

Pakistan, which shed its status as part of British India more than 65 years ago, considers the line to be an international border, as does the majority of the international community. But Afghanistan has never recognized the porous frontier, which cuts through the ethnic Pashtun heartland.

The simmering tensions boiled over on May 2, when Afghan border police in Goshta district opened fire and destroyed parts of the newly built installations. Afghan forces said they had noticed Pakistani troops starting additional work on the outpost, despite recent agreements to halt construction.

An Afghan border guard was reportedly killed and three others injured during a six-hour clash with Pakistani troops. Pakistani authorities said that two of its security personnel were wounded in the skirmish.

Blame Game

Each side has blamed the other for sparking the incident, which took place along a crucial battleground in the fight against Taliban and Al-Qaeda-linked militants that operate on both sides of the border.

In April, Afghan President Hamid Karzai ordered Afghan troops to "take immediate measures" to remove the installations near Goshta district. Karzai has maintained that activities by either side along the Durand Line must be approved by both countries. An Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman has claimed that the post is up to 30 kilometers inside Afghan territory. He has suggested that "all options" are open in Kabul to ensure the installations are removed.

Karzai has directed his Foreign, Interior, and Defense ministries to ask for clarification from the U.S.-led coalition for "assisting and supporting Pakistan to build these installations," according to a statement from the president's office.

Abdul Karim Khurram, the president's chief of staff, revealed on April 29 that Karzai has sent a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama to seek his help in retaking nearly a dozen border posts the Afghan president's office believes Pakistani forces have unjustly occupied in the past decade.

Khurram said Karzai, who sent the letter on April 15, accused the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) of handing military posts it had built along the border over to Pakistani forces.

"When ISAF and coalition troops arrived in Afghanistan, they took these check posts and centers," the BBC and "Afghanistan Times" quoted Khurram as saying. "[The ISAF] paved the way for the Pakistani military to occupy these posts after they evacuated the posts. It shows some U.S. interference on the issue. Considering the U.S.-Afghan long-term strategic pact, Karzai sent a letter to Obama."

Mass Protests

The dispute in Nangarhar has led to mass protests against Pakistan. For the last few weeks, the streets of the provincial capital, Jalalabad, have been lined with demonstrators chanting anti-Pakistan slogans and demanding military action by the Afghan government.

Protesters have also demanded that Nangarhar Governor Gul Agha Sherzai, whom they have accused of treason, be dismissed immediately. The calls came after lawmakers said Sherzai failed to inform them of Pakistan's activity along the border and accused him of not doing enough to stop the construction of border installations.

In retaliation, Pakistan on April 30 closed its border crossing with Afghanistan along the highway linking Kabul and Islamabad. A Pakistani border official said the closure was ordered because an Afghan border guard fought with a Pakistani official.

That came a day after Islamabad tightened entry requirements in connection with Pakistan's May 11 general elections, ordering that only Afghans with valid documents be allowed to cross into Pakistan. Before the measure, crossing the border without travel documents was routine.

Afghan claims that Pakistan is trying to thwart efforts to begin reconciliation talks with the Taliban have also fueled souring relations.

Afghanistan has grown increasingly frustrated with Pakistan, saying Islamabad is not fulfilling its promises regarding the peace process. Kabul has suggested that Islamabad is seeking to keep Afghanistan unstable until foreign combat forces leave at the end of 2014.

Afghanistan has long accused Pakistan of providing sanctuary to Afghan insurgents on its soil. Pakistan denies this and says that Pakistani Taliban routinely seek shelter on the Afghan side of the border.


The vicious cycle of insecurity in Afghanistan
Foreign Policy (blog) By M. Ashraf Haidari Thursday, May 2, 2013
Almost twelve years have passed since the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, but peace remains elusive. Four interlocking challenges with internal, regional, transnational, and international dimensions impede Afghanistan's stabilization and reconstruction. Each challenge facing Afghanistan feeds off the others, and together they have engendered a vicious circle that is destabilizing the country.

First, Afghanistan is an underdeveloped country and much of its infrastructure has been destroyed by conflict. Its new state institutions lack the basic capacity and resources to administer their mandates. These structural problems are compounded by the country's expanding population, 70% of which is illiterate and demand jobs that do not exist. Taken together, abject poverty, a lack of basic services, and a demographic explosion significantly contribute to instability in Afghanistan.

Second, it is clear that the Taliban leadership continues to receive protection from the Pakistani military and intelligence establishments. It stands to reason that without an external sanctuary, sustainable funding, weapons supplies, and intelligence support in Pakistan, the Taliban would be unable to reconsolidate its control over Afghanistan. Since 2003, the Taliban and its affiliated networks have gradually expanded their influence in the ungoverned southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan, launching daily terrorist attacks that have injured and killed thousands of innocent civilians.

Third, Afghanistan is vulnerable to transnational security threats, stemming in particular from the narcotics trade and terrorism stand. These security threats feed into and are fed by Afghanistan's internal and regional challenges. Rife poverty and weak governance, for example, are as much responsible for mass drug production in Afghanistan as is the global demand for narcotics; this is not to mention the alliance between the Taliban and drug traffickers, who exploit Afghanistan's vulnerable population to destabilize the country.

Fourth, although the diversity of nations present in Afghanistan demonstrates international goodwill and consensus for supporting the country, each contributing nation has pursued its own aid strategies, effectively bypassing coordination with each other and the Afghan government. Hence, a lack of strategic coordination across international military and civilian efforts to ensure aid effectiveness has so far crippled the Afghan state and left it with no capacity or resources to deliver basic services to its people.

It is important to note, however, that in the face of the aforementioned complex challenges, Afghanistan and its international partners have a number of significant advantages, which must be fully harnessed to regain the momentum necessary to achieve peace in the country.

Foremost among these is Afghanistan's key, untapped asset: its people, who make up one of the youngest, most energetic, and most forward-looking nations in the world. They should be supported in acquiring higher education in technical fields, and their energy and skills must be harnessed to exploit Afghanistan's vast natural resources, worth more than one trillion dollars, to help the country develop a productive economy.

Secondly, Afghanistan's vital location should help it serve as a regional trade and transit hub for easy movement of goods and natural resources to meet the rising energy demands of India and China. Indeed, without this realization and utilization of Afghanistan as the heart of the New Silk Road, achieving regional economic integration will remain impossible. The recent India-China dialogue on how to protect their shared long-term interests in Afghanistan is a welcome development. The more these key regional players, including Russia and Turkey, get constructively involved in Afghanistan through investment in the country's virgin markets, the less space for the region's peace spoilers, whether state or non-state actors, to destabilize the country.

Finally, Afghanistan's friends and allies have gone through the learning curve, and gained invaluable experience in assisting Afghanistan effectively. Together, they have made many mistakes and learned many lessons over the past 12 years, which should be used as a strategic opportunity to avoid more of the same, and to do the right thing henceforth.

In line with the agreed-upon objectives of the 2010 Kabul Conference, which were re-affirmed in the Tokyo Conference last year, Afghanistan's nation-partners should align 80% of their aid with the goals of the country's national priority programs, while channeling at least 50% of their assistance through the Afghan national budget. This is the best way to prevent further waste of taxpayers' financial assistance, which have largely bypassed the targeted beneficiaries.

This means a firm re-commitment to bottom-up and top-down institutional capacity building in the Afghan state so that Afghans increasingly initiate, design, and implement reconstruction projects on their own. Meanwhile, the Afghan national security forces must be equipped with the necessary capabilities -- including capacity for logistics and equipment maintenance as well as adequate ground and air firepower -- to execute independent operations against conventional and unconventional enemies. This way, they will gradually relieve international forces of the duty Afghans consider to be theirs - to defend Afghanistan now and beyond 2014. On the whole, these vital efforts will help ensure the irreversibility of the transition process currently underway.

The Afghan people have placed much hope and trust in the strategic partnership agreements the Afghan government has signed with the United States, India, and other allies to help address the above security challenges confronting Afghanistan. But this long-term and necessary task cannot be accomplished by any one party alone. Every state in the region and beyond has a stake in the stabilization and reconstruction of Afghanistan, knowing that the effects of terrorism and insecurity in one country can easily spill over to affect the rest in a globalized world. Thus, with Afghans leading the way forward, the burden of securing Afghanistan must be shared by the whole international community, both to ensure durable stability in the country and to maintain global peace and security.

M. Ashraf Haidari is the deputy chief of mission of the Afghan Embassy in India. He formerly served as Afghanistan's deputy assistant national security adviser, as well as deputy chief of mission of the Afghan Embassy in the United States.


Lack of Punishment Fuels Corruption In Afghanistan
TOLOnews.com By Mursal Mansouri Thursday, 02 May 2013
Afghan Minister of Economy Abdul Hadi Arghandiwal told at ceremony that was held for apparition of governors in Kabul on Thursday that a lack of reward and punishment widened corruption in the country.

Economy minister considers absence of the rule of law as the main barrier ahead of development in the country and added that International Community’s assistance has been wasted so far.

“If there is a fight against any kind of corruption it the country, we will have a free and glorious Afghanistan,” Afghan Economy Minister, Abdul Hadi Arghandiwal, said.

Meanwhile, Karzai’s brother, Mahmood Karzai, expressed his concern over the country’s security situation and said that less attention has been paid to enforce law in country.

“One of the main challenges is security; in my view the security is going failed and we must find a solution, Mahmood Karzai said.

On the other hand a number of governors and parliament members considered existence of corruption shameful and they are emphasising on elimination of corruption in the country.

The governors and representatives believe that regular monitoring is effective in supervision of government functions.

“Afghanistan is in the lead of corrupt countries in the world which is very shameful for Afghan people,” MP Nadir Khan Katawazi said.


Turkham Border Gate Reopened
TOLOnews.com Thursday, 02 May 2013
Pakistani Border Police reopened the Turkham border gate on Thursday after an apology from Afghan authorities.

Pakistani officials say the Turkham border was closed after an Afghan border police insulted a Pakistani border police.

According to Pakistani officials, Afghan authorities apologised for the misbehavior of the Afghan police towards the Pakistani border police, and that the border was reopened.

Meanwhile, Pakistan border officials added that its borders with Afghanistan will be closed from 10th to 12th of this month, as Pakistan is to hold parliamentary elections on May 11th, and the border will be closed for security reasons.

Crossing from both sides of the border will be forbidden during the mentioned period and the Afghans should not try to travel to Pakistan, officials said.

It comes after Pakistani police closed the Torkham border crossing into Pakistan in eastern Nangarhar province on Tuesday and set a deadline for Afghans.

Pakistan’s border police said that within the next three days they will not allow any Afghans even those who bear refugee documents, to enter Pakistan without passport.

Meanwhile, a number of Afghan residents called on the government to solve the problem with the Pakistan government.

Pakistani border police said that only Afghans holding passports can enter Pakistan and those Afghan refugees who are living in Pakistan must be issued passports within three days, otherwise they will not be allowed to enter Pakistan if they leave.

Previously four Afghans died after the Pakistani police closed the Torkham border.


Afghan Media: Free Agents or Obedient Servants?
Experts offer sharply opposing views on progress since 2001.
IWPR By Mina Habib, Hafizullah Gardesh 2 May 13
Afghanistan - A diverse and free media environment is often cited as one of the major achievements of post-2001 Afghanistan, but some local commentators say that is far from the whole truth.

To mark World Press Freedom Day, May 3, IWPR asked working journalists and media-watchers in Afghanistan for their view on how Abdul Qahar Jawad, who lectures in journalism at Kabul University, is among the optimists.

“Whenever we hear from the media that some individual is involved in seizing land, taking bribes or violating human rights – regardless of what impact the report has – it’s clear evidence that free speech exists,” he said. “Such things would have been impossible under past governments.”

Since the Taleban administration was ousted in 2001, Afghanistan has seen a boom in broadcast and print media. The country now has 53 television channels, 15 radio stations and hundreds of print publications. As Jawad pointed out, freedom of expression is enshrined in the Afghan constitution.

“Compared with previous periods, freedom of speech and media has undergone a 100 per cent improvement,” Abdul Hamid Mobarez, chairman of the National Union Journalists,told IWPR, adding that “by world standards, though, we face many problems”.

Mobarez sees the biggest single achievement of the last decade as the elimination of state monopoly ownership.

“In terms of quality and quantity, our media are fairly unique in this region,” he told IWPR. “Neighbouring countries can’t compete with us in that regard.”

After the “decade of democracy” from 1964 to 1973, press freedom was squeezed out of existence. The last Soviet-backed leader, President Najibullah, allowed some independent media to start up, but those tentative steps were swept away in the civil war that followed the mujahedin takeover in 1992. The Taleban, in power in Kabul from 1996, even cut out the one state-run TV station, leaving their Voice of Shariah radio as the sole broadcaster.

“Under that regime, it was considered a sin to take photographs,” recalled Danesh Karokhel, director of the Pajhwok news agency. By contrast, he said, the changes following 2001 allowed the media to develop into a real force that helped make the public much more politically and socially aware.

“We can therefore conclude that this has been a great opportunity for us, and that media freedom in Afghanistan is in good shape,” he said.

Mobarez acknowledges that multiple challenges remain, chief among them the failure to institutionalise a “culture of democracy” in Afghanistan. Government officials are frequently uncooperative, and reporters face security threats not just from the Taleban but also from their own side and from the international forces operating in the country.

The Nai – Supporting Open Media in Afghanistan group says 39 journalists have been killed since 2001, and 1,000 more injured, assaulted or imprisoned.

Abdol Mojib Khelwatgar, executive director of the Nai group, says the government has failed to live up to its own commitments.

“Freedom of speech is a coin – on one side there’s the right to freely comment, criticise and make suggestions; the reverse is that the government and state have to assume their responsibilities. Unfortunately, that reverse face of the coin hasn’t been in evidence in the last 11 years”.

Nabi Asir, who reports for Deutsche Welle radio from northern Afghanistan, said the “gift” of freedom of expression came with too many strings attached.

“Freedom of speech and media was never institutionalised because the external forces which back the warlords and the national and local strongmen imposed on people by force of arms have given them monopoly control over free speech,” he said. “Freedom of speech has been held hostage over the past 11 years, and it still is. Journalists and media outlets enjoy freedom of speech as long as they don’t say anything against the interests of these powerful individuals and thieves. If they do, there will be no freedom for them.”

Writer and journalist Mohammad Hassan Wolosmal went further in his criticism.

“I would question whether a country under occupation can claim to have freedom. The media are occupied in the same way as our country is occupied by the United States. They are controlled by western countries, by Pakistan or Iran, by domestic political parties, factions and strongmen.”

He continued, “Every media outlet is a political project created by somebody. Let’s consider the extent to which the media’s activities have converged with our national interests or with the interests of others. That kind of assessment will tell us whether or not we have freedom of speech and media. The actual number of media outlets is irrelevant.”

Funding is at the heart of this debate. With limited opportunities for advertising revenues, media businesses tend to rely on foreign donors or wealthy private benefactors. Either entails the risk of accusations of bias. (See Lean Times for Afghan Journalism.)

“Any media outlet that receives money from others cannot claim to be free,” asserted political analyst Abdul Ghaful Lewal, who believes self-sufficiency is a basic precondition for editorial independence.

Lewal blames poor journalistic standards for the failure to turn many outlets into viable commercial entities.

“Anarchy has come to reign, in the name of free speech. The media became so critical that their role was devalued. The people in power became immunised against all the criticism, so that it doesn’t touch them any more,” he said. “Many journalists began working for outsiders as paid employees. The public lost faith in the media, and people’s faith, historic and cultural values were misused. The lack of transparency in media funding also made people mistrustful.”

Despite sharing some of his colleagues’ criticisms, Khelwatgar says things could be a lot worse.

“If – God forbid – the media stop operating in Afghanistan even for just one day,” he said, “there will be a tenfold increase in the crimes committed by the Taleban, by the bully-boys, and by those who lie like coiled serpents in the bosom of state and nation, just waiting to drink more of the people’s blood.”

Mina Habib is an IWPR-trained reporter in Kabul. Hafizullah Gardesh is IWPR's Afghanistan editor.

www.afghanistannewscenter.com