Slaughter of Afghans

The killing of 18 civilians and 20 policemen through friendly fire the Nato warriors have bagged another 5 girls, 7 boys and 2 women, taking the toll to 52 in less than a week. The latest killing occurred when the Brave marines got scared to death by small-arms fire at their base and called for air support and the helicopter-borne troops obliged by resorting to indiscriminate firing on Afghan houses.American claimed that they came to the region because of Osama bin Laden. Now that he is dead, and the Americans are already negotiating with Taliban, there is absolutely no reason to continue this barbarity. As a matter of fact, the Americans have no intention to leave the region altogether and want to weaken Afghans so much that they would agree to allow Americans to establish huge bases in Afghanistan, which they would subsequently use to dismember and defang nuclear Pakistan as well as to prepare for their ultimate war with China.
________________________________________________________

NATO-led international forces would become occupation troops if they did not stop nighttime raids that caused civilians casualties, President Hamid Karzai warned on Tuesday. The multinational force killed 14 civilians, including five girls, seven boys and two women, and injured several others three days ago when it bombed houses in the Salam Bazaar area of Nawzad district in southern Helmand province.
At a news conference in Kabul, Karzai once again condemned the bombing raid and warned international servicemembers to end operations that harmed innocent noncombatants. "If foreign troops continue with night raids, they would turn from a counterterrorism force into an occupying force. And history is witness to the fact how Afghans deal with occupation troops," Karzai told reporters.
He added his government would be duty-bound to take effective steps to prevent civilian deaths, an emotive issue for the Afghan nation, if its warnings against "irresponsible" operations continued to be ignored.
Saturday's deadly explosion in Taloqan, the capital of northern Takhar province, was a heartrending incident, the latest in a series of attacks on honest, committed and patriotic figures, the president said.
Commander of 303rd Pamir police zone, and Gen. Mohammad Daud Daud, provincial police chief, Brig. Gen. Shah Jehan Noori, were among the dead. Governor Abdul Jabbar Taqwa and an ISAF commander for northern zone were among 10 others injured.
The president reiterated his administration would no longer allow ISAF aerial bombing of civilian houses. "From this moment, airstrikes on the houses of people are not allowed," he said.
The Afghans could no longer put up with these attacks, he said, adding his government would be forced into taking unilateral action if civilian deaths from air raids continued.

The US- led alliance has failed and in the last 10 years they could not achieve any considerable success in Afghanistan. The security situation is worse than ever before, drug trafficking has touched record levels, civilian casualties have soared in the recent past, and there has been a rise in attacks on US led alliance that has deteriorated security situation in Afghanistan. Now the question arises whether the US- led alliance can achieve what they claim in next four years? Can America and its NATO allies clear 10 years of mess in next four years, such claims are beyond reality.
In reality America and its allies are looking for a respectable way out from the Afghan impasse.
First their military strategy has failed with the  Taliban now calling the shots in Afghanistan. Secondly public opinion in the United States and NATO is widely against the war in Afghanistan. Thirdly the Taliban has clearly conveyed this message that they will never negotiate with the US and its allies. Third the economic recession has also compelled US and Europe to end occupation in Afghanistan and avoid further economic and human losses.
There is no relative peace in Afghanistan. The Taliban are stronger than ever before. The overall safety and security situation is volatile and unstable in Afghanistan. Lack of basic infrastructure, government services and health facilities, a decrease in human resource development, drug trafficking, rising attacks on civilians and the US led alliance and corruption are the main characteristics of today’s Afghanistan.
Insurgency in Afghanistan is gaining momentum, making things worse for the Afghan Government and US- led alliance. From 2001 to 2010 the US- led Alliance has suffered 2,169 casualties. In the last two years more than 7,400 attacks had taken place in Afghanistan resulting in more than 2,400 civilian casualties. Public support of the US war in Afghanistan is also waning in the US, Afghanistan and regional countries. According to a recent CNN poll, only 37% percent of Americans favor the war in Afghanistan, and more than half of Americans believe the war has turned into a Vietnam-like quagmire.

Pakistan: New challenges

History shows that west exploits others but never uphold its promises may it be promise of saving Ottoman Empire, resolving Kashmir or Palestine issues under UN Resolutions.
____________________________________________________________

 By Rizwan Ghani

Pakistan was not deliberately invited in NATO’s Lisbon Summit despite being the key Non-NATO ally, whereas UAE was. It shows that west did not want the world to honor Pakistan’s sacrifices in blood and kind, and improve its image. In addition, US/NATO leadership did not mention about deaths of 30,000 Pakistanis including 3000 armed forces personal, tens of thousands injured and those who were handicapped for life in America’s so-called war against terrorism (SWAT) and suicide blasts in Pakistan for supporting US led NATO Afghan occupation and its supply route through the country.
Also, the leaders of US, UN, EU and NATO failed to share with the world and international media that Pakistani taxpayers have spent 55 billion dollars on America’s SWAT so far. The America’s war has shattered Pakistan’s economy, industry and rendered millions of Pakistanis jobless. All this has forced hundreds to commit suicides. The decade long, SWAT has left Pakistan’s economy eternally dependent on the international support. The west is neither willing to admit this nor ready to recoup the cost of war. Instead, it is blocking Pakistan’s (energy) trade with Iran and China. It is an open affront to the policy makers in Islamabad who are pouring country’s wealth on SWAT at the cost of 90 percent Pakistanis struggling below two dollars a day.

Pakistan has been removed from its pivotal role in Afghanistan. UAE’s FM while talking to the media in Lisbon said that UAE engage Taliban. It speaks of a shift in the role of Pakistan in Afghanistan and its strategic interests. Reportedly, NATO and ISAF command see Pakistan as enemy due to Islamabad’s concept of “strategic depth”, and support Indian Boots in Afghanistan (local news Nov. 8). Afghan Defense Ministry and Head of NATO training mission denied Pakistan’s role in training Afghan army. US/NATO are stifling Pushtoons- 59 percent of Afghan population- to cut the influence of Islamabad in Kabul. The fact of the matter is all Afghans want an end to US/NATO occupation and accountability of its leadership for the war crimes committed by the occupation forces in Afghanistan. Karzai is letting the country down by failing to seek justice from UN and The Hague in return for stay in power.
Whereas, Islamabad still believes that in return for fawning cooperating with America it could keep India out of Afghanistan and secure its national and regional geo-military and economic interests. I have my doubts because history shows that west exploits others but never uphold its promises may it be promise of saving Ottoman Empire, resolving Kashmir or Palestine issues under UN Resolutions. Washington by supporting Pak-Afghan Trade Agreement (PATA) for last four decades has shown that it stands for India’s interests only. Islamabad must scrap PATA. Pakistan did not support Washington’s SWAT to compromise its own geo-strategic interests in the region, share its $400 bn trade corridor with India. Islamabad must justify its support of pro-US foreign policy and explain to the nation how it plans to protect its geo-strategic interests.

America is using SWAT to stay in Afghanistan and protect its long-term geostrategic interests in the region. International experts are of the view that terrorism is not linked to religion and extremism. In ninety percent cases, it is a reaction against foreign occupation forces. Australian writer has given the example of Sri Lanka where freedom fighters seeking political rights have resorted to suicide attacks. They do not practice any religion. Islamabad’s support for illegal Afghan occupation, use of tax rupees to secure and sustain NATO’s war supply route in violation of contract for non-combat supplies are some of the reasons fueling suicide attacks.
The message from Lisbon is clear that US/NATO is going to stay permanently in Afghanistan. Holbrooke’s statement to Pakistani press that we have a transition strategy but we do not have an exit strategy needs no elaboration. NATO Sec. Gen. promised international forces would stay “as long as it takes”. Head of British armed forces Gen. Richards while replying to a question said that US/ NATO (Afghan) occupation could last 30 to 40 years. It is opined that US is going to turn Afghanistan into its permanent airbase in Central Asia. Since they are form majority of Afghan population therefore On the other hand, reportedly, Turkey did not support attack on Iran because it would undermine safety of its own people. Thus, with no end of illegal Afghan occupation in sight how Islamabad plans to secure its own people while occupation forces continue killing hapless Afghan civilians and destroy their houses.

China is one of the reasons for Afghan occupation. There is a bipartisan consensus in America that maintaining US military presence in Central Asia and Middle East is of strategic importance. It allows Washington to control energy supplies in the region including China. Beijing is pursuing a three-pronged strategy to protect its interests. It is expanding its $550 bn trade with America further while America continues to expand its military presence around China. The support of Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia for NATO, agreement of installing a radar in Turkey under (new) START agreement, Obama’s visits to India and Georgia, lifting of sanctions against Sudan and proposed plans to engage North Korea and Myanmar in days to come are cases in point.
In foreign policy and security issues, China is pursuing policy of non-interference. While elaborating China’s Asia Policy during “Friendship Year” address, China’s Asst. Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue said that a new security concept should be established with mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and coordination at its core, one that recognizes, respects and rises above national differences in terms of ideology, values, social system and development stage. Hu said that Beijing has played an active role in addressing hotspot issues and it is dedicated in its effort to seek peaceful resolution of disputes over territory, territorial sea and maritime rights and interests through friendly negotiations. China must play its role to end Afghan occupation because without peace in the “south yards” of China, there cannot be a “Golden Century of Asia”.

In economic terms, China is engaging different regions of the world proactively. Beijing has signed a $50bn deal with Turkey. Under Chiang Mai initiative, it has engaged Malaysia, Japan and South Korea with $120 bn for regional foreign exchange reserve pool, 360bn RNB Yuan bilateral currency swap agreement with Malaysia, $10 bn power-producing equipment deal with India’s Reliance Company. Beijing is deepening its financial, energy and social welfare cooperation with East Asia. Beijing ought to support Pakistan, (Afghanistan and Iran) on similar lines to strengthen local economy, trade and growth.
From the human rights perspective, Afghan occupation must end to free 340 million people in Pakistan, Afghanistan (and Iran). In its ninth White Paper on Human Rights, Beijing has explicitly defined social empowerment, education, and right to justice as the fundamentals of human rights. British media is also claiming that European Convention of human rights is in Britain’s DNA. Therefore, it is time to use these laws to end Afghan occupation, bring war criminals to book, end extra-judicial killings by US drones on both sides of Pak-Afghan border, remove sanctions against Iran, impose sanctions on west, and uphold UN Resolutions on Kashmir and Palestine. Without addressing human rights, Beijing cannot end western imperialism.

NATO’s Lisbon Summit was about Russia not Afghanistan. However, Moscow needs to refresh Ottoman and USSR history to understand coy politics of the west. I think Russia’s WTO membership is a remote possibility, and skeptics of New STAR are confident that Republicans will thwart Obama’s denuclearization hopes, too. Thus, Islamabad, Beijing, Moscow, UN and EU need to review their US/NATO Afghan policies to end Afghan occupation, protect their national, regional and human rights interests.

NATO, Karzai and the relics of Kabul

 The long-term security document signed between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Afghanistan on Saturday at the alliance`s summit meeting in Lisbon has a 50-50 chance of becoming a historic milestone or ending up as yet another forlom artifact in the vandalised Kabul museum.
__________________________________________________


By M K Bhadrakumar

Having come to the region seven years ago on a UN-mandated "out-of-area" operation hunting down al-Qaeda, the Western alliance is suo motu broadening and deepening its "commitment" in the hope of taking up long-term residence in the Hindu Kush. But Kabul museum has many relics of history.

A beleaguered and politically battered Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, meekly put his signature as a junior partner on the document with Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO's secretary-general. Regional capitals as far apart as Tehran, Moscow and Islamabad would have taken note.

Quite obviously, notwithstanding the phased transfer of security responsibility to the Afghan government by the end of 2014, the NATO forces hope to stay on in Afghanistan. The United States President Barack Obama said:

I'm pretty confident [what] we will still be doing after 2014 is maintaining a counterterrorism capability [in Afghanistan] until we have the confidence that al-Qaeda is no longer operative and is no longer a threat... And so it's going to be important for us to continue to have platforms to be able to execute those counterterrorism operations.

My goal is to make sure that by 2014 we have transitioned, Afghans are in the lead, and it is a goal to make sure that we are still not engaged in combat operations of the sort that we're involved with now. Certainly our footprint will have been significantly reduced. But beyond that, it's hard to anticipate exactly what is going to be necessary to keep the American people safe as of 2014. I'll make that determination when I get there."

Obama added to the strategic ambiguity by confirming that a long-term agreement between the US and Karazi's government would be signed. The Americans have put Ashraf Ghani (the former World Bank official whom they robustly projected as presidential candidate in last October's Afghan election) in charge of the "transition", effectively bypassing Karzai, and clearly hope to micro-manage it.

Obama publicly snubbed Karzai by insisting he will have to learn to live with US military strategies, including the controversial night raids about which Kabul frequently protests. Jettisoning his usual charm and persuasive ways and even discarding the courtesies of inter-state behaviour, Obama cut Karzai down to size:

"If we [US] are ponying up billions of dollars, if the expectation is that our troops are going to be there to help secure the countryside and ensure that President Karzai can continue to build and develop his country, then he's got to also pay attention to our concerns as well… he's got to understand that I've got a bunch of young men and women from small towns and big cities all across America who are in a foreign country being shot at and having to traverse terrain filled with IEDs [improvised explosive devices] and they need to protect themselves. And so if we're setting things up where they're just sitting ducks for the Taliban, that's not an acceptable answer either."

The best spin that can be given to the blunt-speaking is that Obama might have been grandstanding. (There were reports that General David Petraeus, the senior US commander in Afghanistan, might throw in the towel.) But Obama overlooked the proud culture of the Hindu Kush and severely wounded Karzai. As his words get played out in Afghanistan in the days and weeks ahead, Karzai's standing is going to plummet to zero. Karzai cannot easily recover from this rebuke - except, perhaps, through more audacious display of his "Afghan-ness".

One hell of a belief

The Declaration on an Enduring Partnership signed in Lisbon provides the framework for the NATO to fulfill not only its "long-term commitment" to Afghanistan's security, stability and integrity; it also recognises Afghanistan as "an important NATO partner" in "contributing to regional security".

In turn, the "commitment" given by the Afghan government that Kabul will act as "an enduring partner to NATO and provide NATO with the necessary assistance to carry out its partnership activities" also recognises the "importance and relevance of broader regionally owned cooperation, coordination and confidence building between Afghanistan and its regional partners."

The Declaration states that NATO and Afghanistan will "strengthen their consultation on issues of strategic concern" and develop "effective measures of cooperation". Thus, there will be "mechanisms for political and military dialogue" and for a "continuing NATO liaison in Afghanistan".

While the "common understanding" between the two parties will be that NATO won't seek to establish a "permanent military presence" and that it will not use its presence against other nations, future cooperation between the alliance and Kabul will be "drawing as appropriate upon NATO's menu of cooperation tools".

Most important, the two sides pledged to "initiate a discussion on a Status of Forces Agreement" within the next three years. While the Declaration is between NATO and Afghanistan, it provides for "opportunity" and "encouragement" to non-NATO countries engaged in the Afghan war (eg, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and others) to "contribute to activities resulting from this declaration".

Three things must be noted. One, Rasmussen quintessentially acted as Washington's agent, which is natural as the US contributes 73% of the 28-member alliance's budget and calls the shots. Therefore, the US' imprimatur on the NATO-Afghan declaration is unmistakable. This is all about the open-ended strategic presence of the United States in Central Asia.

Obama wisely highlighted to the Western audience the 2014 timeline, which suggests the war is ending. He also addressed growing public opposition to the war. At the same time, he is moving on two parallel tracks by forging agreements for long-term military presence in Afghanistan as well as "aligning" the US allies in NATO with Washington's approach on the way forward.

However, it all presupposes, as Obama put it, "we're now achieving our objective of breaking the Taliban's momentum... I am confident that we can meet our objective." Whether he truly believes in his self-confidence we do not know, but it is doubtless one hell of a belief.

Museum piece?

Second, Karzai doesn't have his heart in this enterprise, and his angst kept surfacing in different forms in the run-up to the Lisbon summit. Just a week ago, Karzai made a scathing attack on the US strategy. Evidently, Karzai has been arm-twisted. The fact that Ghani has been brought in to handle "transition" along with Obama's dressing down to Karzai are clear hints to the Afghan president not to push his luck. Whether he will accept this rebuke or heed the warning is a big question.

The Afghan bazaar will be keenly watching. A realignment of political forces on the country's chessboard becomes almost inevitable. Significantly, former president and Tajik leader Burhanuddin Rabbani (who heads the High Council appointed by Karzai to negotiate with the Taliban) arrived in Tehran over the weekend for consultations.

The "Ustad" rarely travels abroad. While receiving Rabbani, the powerful speaker of the Iranian parliament [Majlis] Ali Larijani expressed Iran's support for the policy of national reconciliation attributed to Karzai, which, Larijani said, is also the will of the Afghan people. It has been announced that Tajik strongman Mohammed Fahim (First Vice-President of Afghanistan) will also visit Tehran "in a near future".

The NATO-Afghan declaration becomes a major hurdle for Karzai's reconciliation strategy. The declaration - and the two status-of-forces agreements on the anvil - should have happened within the ambit of a settlement. Clearly, the US is prepared to negotiate only from a position of strength. NATO's approach spelt out at Lisbon underscores the US grit to weaken the Taliban militarily before engaging them in talks. 

Therefore, the period between now and July 2011 (when the drawdown of US forces begins) will be decisive. Of course, no matter what happens, Petraeus is a favourite of the Republicans, and a strategy associated with him gets bipartisan support in Washington.

But Karzai's preliminary work so far for eventual negotiations with the Taliban has virtually stalled and it is difficult to resuscitate it until at least the results of Petraeus' work on the battlefield get known by early summer. Meanwhile, Petraeus has brought in M1 Abrams tanks as his ultimate weapon.

But M1 Abrams can't distinguish between friend and foe, and the "collateral damage" will become Karzai's political burden and Taliban's mileage. Besides, what if Petraeus fails to dent the insurgency militarily? Obama might then as well give up the hope of negotiating from a position of strength. Which, of course, will render the NATO-Afghan declaration a museum piece.

Unsurprisingly, Pakistan sounds skeptical about the 2014 timeline, et al. While Rasmussen and Karzai were putting their pens to paper in Lisbon, gunmen near Peshawar torched yet another NATO convoy ferrying supplies for Petraeus' troops.