All the latest news, sport, showbiz,entertainment,celebrity scandals news, science and health stories from around the world ,latest breaking news and information on the latest top stories, weather, business, entertainment, politics, new video free uncensored leaked celebrity news and more
Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai (left) shakes hands with India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during a photo opportunity ahead of their meeting at Hyderabad House in New Delhi on October 4, 2011.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed a wide-ranging agreement with India on Tuesday to deepen ties between the two countries, including to help train Afghan security forces, in a deal likely to irk Pakistan as tension grows in the region.
India is one of Afghanistan‘s biggest bilateral donors, having pledged about US$2 billion (RM6.38 billion) since the 2001 US led-invasion for projects from the construction of highways to the building of the Afghan parliament.
On a two-day visit to New Delhi, Karzai and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sealed a strategic partnership that spanned closer political ties to fighting terrorism. It signals a formal tightening of links that may spark Pakistani concerns India is increasingly competing for leverage in Afghanistan.
The agreement is one of several being negotiated by Kabul, including one with the United States, that are part of an Afghan bid for greater security as Nato troops head home.
“India will stand by the people of Afghanistan as they prepare to assume the responsibility for their governance and security after the withdrawal of international forces in 2014,” Singh said in a joint press conference on Monday evening.
India wants to ensure that a withdrawal of US troops does not lead to a civil war that spreads Islamist militancy across borders. At the same time it is closely watching Pakistan’s own efforts to secure its interests in Afghanistan.
Karzai’s visit has been planned for months, but it comes as Afghanistan appears increasingly frustrated with Pakistan.
Many senior Afghan officials accuse Pakistan’s intelligence agency of masterminding the assassination last month of Burhanuddin Rabbani, Kabul’s chief peace negotiator with the Taliban, a killing that Singh condemned in his speech on Monday.
Karzai himself has said there is a Pakistani link to the killing, and investigators he appointed believe the assassin was Pakistani, and that the suicide bombing was plotted in the Pakistani city of Quetta.
“At this juncture, the visit will cause great heartburn in Islamabad,” said Saeed Naqvi, a fellow at the Observer Research Foundation think-tank in New Delhi.
“That is unfortunate from the Indian perspective because anything achieved in the visit will be seen by Pakistan as an insult.”
Wary of Pakistan, Indian officials have always said they want to focus on what they like to call “soft power” — economic aid and trade.
The two leaders also agreed to closer cooperation in the strategically key sectors of oil and gas exploration, mining and infrastructure development, pledging to use India’s growing economic clout to foster trade and investment flows.
But India offering more security training to Afghanistan is almost certain to annoy Pakistan.
India has already trained a small number of officers from the Afghan National Army.
Economic focus
Still, India treads carefully. It suspects Pakistan of involvement in several major attacks, including two bombings of its embassy in Kabul in 2008 and 2009, seen as warnings from Islamabad to stay away from its traditional “backyard.”
Without a land border with Afghanistan and dependent on Pakistan for any overland trade, India knows its influence is limited.
“India will want to play its part in keeping Afghanistan stable, but it is focussing mainly on economic ties,” said C. Raja Mohan, senior fellow at New Delhi’s Centre for Policy Research. “It does not does not see itself as a counterbalance to Pakistan. It knows that Pakistan is setting the terms there.”
India does have historical ties to former Northern Alliance leaders who battled the Pakistan-backed Taliban in the 1990s. Some believe that India could increase its influence with these leaders if Afghanistan moves back towards civil war.
For the moment, trade appears to be what matters.
A consortium led by state-run Steel Authority of India (SAIL) could invest up to US$6 billion in mines, railroads and a steel plant in a race with China to lock in raw materials for two of the world’s fastest-growing economies.
The contract for the Hajigak iron ore mines in Bamiyan province is potentially the single biggest foreign investment project in Afghanistan.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai recognises that the United States is a friend and ally even as he warns that civilian casualties in Afghanistan risk making US-led troops appear to be an occupying force, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said yesterday.
Gates, who spoke to reporters in Hawaii while en route to an Asian security conference, was reacting to Karzai’s statement yesterday that raids on Afghan homes in pursuit of insurgents are “not allowed” and his threat to take action if a spate of civilian casualties does not stop.
Karzai expressed anger over Nato air strikes on Sunday in southern Helmand Province that killed at least nine people, most of them small children.
“This is a continuing challenge that we face in the kind of war that we are fighting in Afghanistan,” Gates told reporters, when asked about Karzai’s comments.
“I think joint investigations of these incidents, when they happen, are important so that we can mutually figure out what exactly happened and what, if anything, went wrong,” he said.
Gates noted that General David Petraeus, the head of Nato-led forces in Afghanistan, had a good dialogue with Karzai and that 80 per cent of civilian casualties in Afghanistan are caused by the Taliban.
“The Afghan people have put up with 30 years of war and I think President Karzai is reflecting the pain and suffering the Afghan people have had to endure,” Gates said.
“But at the same time I think he also recognises, and the Afghan people do, that we are their ally, that we are their friend and we are trying to help them develop the capability to protect themselves so that the Afghan people can see an end to this kind of conflict.”
President Barack Obama plans in July to start a gradual drawdown of US troops in Afghanistan.
White House spokesman Jay Carney earlier yesterday reiterated US regret for civilian casualties and said the United States would continue its efforts to reduce them in coordination with Nato and Afghan officials.
“We do not operate in a vacuum in that country and will continue to work with President Karzai on this important issue because we take very seriously his concerns and we share them,” Carney told reporters in Washington.
Still haunted by its own disastrous war in Afghanistan, Russia is tiptoeing back into Kabul’s affairs ahead of a gradual withdrawal of Nato troops that could leave a dangerous power vacuum in what was once a traditional sphere of influence.
Moscow has refused to send troops to the war, which is becomingly increasingly unpopular as it drags into its 10th year, but it has backed drug raids, and increased support for Nato and local forces. It has also showed interest in business deals as it vies to boost its clout in Afghanistan.
Russia has welcomed Afghan President Hamid Karzai twice in the past 12 months, where he directly asked his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev for help with security.
Long indirectly involved in Afghan affairs through supporting foreign operations, Russia is now pursuing ‘independent engagement’, said Vanda Felbab-Brown, an expert on Afghanistan and fellow at the Brookings Institution.
‘Russia’s primary objective is to avoid having civil war, instability and leakages into Central Asia and into Russia itself,’ Felbab-Brown told Reuters from Washington.
Moscow has also been courting Pakistan, seen as instrumental to peace plans in Afghanistan, where some 15,000 Soviet soldiers died fighting mujahideen insurgents before pulling out in 1989.
Russia agreed last year to expand on a transit deal to allow Nato to take armoured vehicles through its territory. It had already allowed the military alliance to ship food and fuel.
An agreement to supply the United States with 21 military helicopters is also expected to be completed by year-end.
‘Russia certainly does not want America to remain in the region,’ said Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the journal Russia in Global Affairs. ‘At the same time, there is also the concern that the US departure, particularly a swift one, will make the situation much more difficult’.
Moscow also hopes to be involved in several economic projects, including a proposed gas pipeline and hydroelectric power facilities in Kabul. Russia has said it would rebuild Soviet-era infrastructure, which it built in the 1950s-1970s, if the international community footed the bill.
Violence, uncertainty
Despite escalating violence, Washington and Nato have pledged to begin a gradual security transition from July as part of a plan that will see all foreign combat troops leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
Experts say the first transition phase — to begin in seven areas — is more about symbolism than substance, but agree the handover is still crucial to determining the readiness of Afghan forces.
Violence last year hit its worst levels since US-backed Afghan forces overthrew the Taliban government in late 2001, but Washington and its allies have backed Karzai’s peace plan, which includes negotiations with Taliban-led insurgents.
However, there is still little idea how that plan will work and the likelihood of more political uncertainty looms.
Still wary of a country at the heart of the ‘Great Game’ — the historic rivalry between Britain and Russia during the 19th and 20th centuries, Moscow is now also driven by its fear of growing Islamism.
Russia is afraid the troop drawdown will allow militants to filter into the oil and gas-producing mainly Muslim countries of ex-Soviet Central Asia.
Last month the head of a Russia-dominated regional security bloc, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), warned member states that Afghan insurgent activity was already spreading to the bordering Central Asian countries.
‘This is one of the main destabilising factors presenting a real threat to collective security in the Central Asian region,’ the CSTO’s Nikolai Bordyuzha said in Moscow.
Moscow is so alarmed, security sources and analysts say, that it is in talks with Tajikistan — whose southern border with Afghanistan is long and porous — to send up to 3,000 Russian border guards to protect the country from a spillover of violence.
Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan also border Afghanistan.
‘It is possible we could see a resurgence of the Taliban, and the Islamist movements in Central Asia might be emboldened by this,’ said Gemma Ferst from the London-based Eurasia Group.
Twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union, homegrown Islamist movements now exist in all Central Asian countries, Ferst added, and links to the international radical community have already been established.
Uphill battle
Russia also has worries closer to home.
The Kremlin is waging an uphill battle with Islamist insurgents in its mainly Muslim North Caucasus region, underpinned by Soviet-era deportations and two separatist wars in Chechnya since 1994.
Potential chaos in Afghanistan after foreign troops leave could encourage Russia’s rebels, who are bent on carving out an independent Islamic state and stage near-daily attacks across the North Caucasus.
Escalating their campaign, they also said they carried out the suicide bombings that killed a total of 77 people in Moscow’s busiest airport in January and on the Moscow metro last year.
‘There are fears that (violence) might reverberate into the North Caucasus, and how moral encouragement from Afghanistan could fuel salafism and separatism there,’ said Felbab-Brown, referring to the ultra-conservative branch of Islam that the Caucasus rebels follow.
Afghan militants have openly supported the North Caucasus in the past: the Taliban government recognised Chechnya as independent in 2000 and even set up an embassy in Kabul.
Russia’s crippling drugs crisis and a looming HIV/AIDS epidemic have also reignited Moscow’s interest in Afghan intervention. A quarter of all Afghan heroin reaches Russia through Central Asia, making it the largest per capita user in the world with up to 3 million addicts.
Though Russia has vowed repeats of a joint raid with the US last year, in which they destroyed four drug labs and a tonne of heroin near the Afghan border with Pakistan, it also disagrees with its Cold War foe over local drug output.
‘The drug trade feeds into militant activity, which poses a risk for Central Asia, and this is of course something that motivates us,’ said anti-drugs tsar Viktor Ivanov, referring to Russia’s desire to destroy poppy crops.
The United States has said eradicating poppy plantations would push disgruntled Afghan farmers into insurgents’ hands.
The Taliban and President Hamid Karzai's government have started secret peace negotiations to end to the war in Afghanistan, the Washington Post has reported.
The newspaper quoted unnamed Afghan and Arab sources who believe the Taliban representatives are authorised to speak for the Pakistan-based Quetta Shura and its leader, Mohammad Omar.
Talks are only in the preliminary stages, according to the Post following inconclusive meetings hosted by Saudi Arabia that ended more than a year ago.
President Karzai's spokesman Waheed Omer declined to confirm or deny the report.
Peace overture: President Hamid Karzai
Training: An Afghan serviceman is taken through a replica village alongside a British soldier
Speaking in Kabul, he said: 'There were contacts in the past and may now be direct or indirect ones. There have been regular contacts over the past two years.There haven't been any substantive talks, there have been contacts only.'
Fighting has dragged on for nine years since U.S. forces led an invasion in 2001 to topple the Taliban regime who harboured the al Qaeda network responsible for the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers.
'They (the Taliban) are very, very serious about finding a way out,' one source close to the talks said.
Omar's representatives have insisted in the past that negotiations were impossible until foreign troops withdrew from Afghanistan.
But the Post said the Quetta Shura has begun to discuss a deal that would include participation of some Taliban figures in the Karzai government and the withdrawal of U.S. and Nato troops on an agreed timeline.
The Quetta Shura is the remains of the Afghan Taliban government overthrown and driven into Pakistan by the invasion.
The talks did not involve the Haqqani network, based mainly in Pakistan's North Waziristan, which has been the target of U.S. drone attacks.
Earlier this week, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said a broad Taliban shift toward reconciliation with the Afghan government was unlikely for now.
He said: 'I think it is too soon to suggest that there is.a wider movement afoot, that the tide is turning in terms of re-integration and reconciliation.'
President Karzai launched an effort this year to reach out to elements of the Taliban that might be willing to deal with the government, renounce violence and accept the new constitution.
He has formed a 70-member peace council in recent weeks to work toward negotiations.
General David Petraeus, the head of U.S. and the Nato-led forces in Afghanistan, has acknowledged contacts between the Afghan government and the Taliban.
But he added it was premature to say whether those Taliban were willing to accept Karzai's terms for pursuing reconciliation.
Last week, a former senior UN official spoke of his concern that the Taliban has infiltrated the Afghan police and army.
Former executive director of the UN's Office of Drugs and Crime in Afghanistan, Antonio Maria Costa said Taliban sleeper cells had been set up inside the security forces.
According to Dr Costa the Taliban have already carried out a number of attacks and have scheduled further hits on Nato-led troops.
Confiscated: Afghan police officers stand near weapons collected after private security firms in Kabul were disbanded
Under guard: A militant is taken away by Afghan security forces which are feared to have been infiltrated by the Taliban
Afghan President Hamid Karzai issued a decree yesterday setting a deadline of four months to disband private security companies despite concerns by Washington over the plan.
The Pentagon called the deadline “very challenging” but said the United States would work with the Afghan government and seek to improve oversight and management of private security firms, long an irritant to Afghans.
“Obviously that is a very aggressive timeline and one which I think our forces and commanders as well as the State Department and (US) ambassador will be working with the government of Afghanistan to achieve,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters.
The US Embassy in Kabul said it supported the Afghan government’s intention to regulate such firms properly. “There are questions of implementation, however,” embassy spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai speaks during his visit to the Civil Service Institute in Kabul August 7, 2010.
The decree said the private security firms were being banned to avoid the misuse of weapons which had caused “horrific and tragic incidents.”
It was issued just hours after Karzai met influential US Senator John Kerry, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Kerry said before the decree was issued that he agreed it was in Afghanistan’s interests not to have “a whole bunch” of private security firms and that Karzai’s concerns were legitimate, although a reasonable timeframe was “up for grabs.”
Such firms employ up to 40,000 people working mainly for Western enterprises in Afghanistan, as well as the US military guarding checkpoints and other roles. There were 52 licensed private security firms operating in Afghanistan, Hayden said, and “numerous others” unlicensed.
“We are still gathering information about how this decree would affect the United States and companies with whom we have contracts,” she said.
The decree includes an exemption for firms whose guards work inside compounds used by foreign embassies and international businesses and aid and charitable organizations, even though Karzai’s office said last week there would be no exceptions.
Firms being disbanded either could sell their weapons to the Afghan government or take the equipment with them as they leave if the companies were properly registered. Unregistered firms would have their weapons confiscated, it said.
The visas of their employees would also be terminated.
Karzai, whose government faces September 18 parliamentary elections, has been trying to assert his independence from his Western backers and stepped up criticism of the firms last week, saying they were too costly and were “daily creating miseries.”
The ban’s swiftness appeared to catch some by surprise, especially as it was issued so soon after Karzai met Kerry.
SCANDALS
Karzai has long called for the disbanding of such companies, which compete for contracts worth billions of dollars. The push to scrap the firms is linked to his ambitious 2014 timetable for Afghanistan to have overall security responsibility.
The decree said eligible Afghan employees of private firms could volunteer to join the Afghan security forces.
The companies, which are not accountable to the Afghan government, have been a source of friction for some time and subject to a series of scandals.
Many Afghans see them as operating with impunity, their heavily armed guards forcing their way through traffic a common sight on Afghan streets.
Karzai’s government tried unsuccessfully last year to register the firms, find out the amount of arms they had and where they came from, and how much money the industry was worth, an Afghan security source has said.
The US State Department said last year it would review its use of contractors at overseas embassies after a scandal over sexual hazing by security guards at its Kabul mission.
Karzai speaks during his visit to the Civil Service Institute in Kabul August 7, 2010
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has asked US President Barack Obama to review how the war in Afghanistan is being conducted as civilian deaths continue to rise, Karzai’s office said today.
A statement issued by the presidential palace said Obama agreed in a video call to start talking about a review, which Karzai also proposed in a letter.
“The two presidents agreed that discussions regarding a strategic review of the more effective ways of fighting terrorism should begin,” the statement, written in Dari, said.
“The war on terrorism should not be won in the villages of Afghanistan, there should be a strategic review of the method of fighting terrorism,” it said, adding they also discussed the parliamentary election on September 18 and efforts to combat corruption.
Civilian casualties caused by US and other foreign forces have been a source of friction between the Afghan government and its Western backers and led to a serious dispute between the two sides last year.
With a parliamentary election looming after a flawed presidential poll a year ago, Karzai is under pressure to demonstrate independence from his Western backers.
He has pushed reconciliation efforts with insurgents through a peace plan which includes an offer of an amnesty, cash and job incentives to Taliban fighters.
Last month, online whistleblower Wikileaks published tens of thousands of classified documents about the war.
Wikileaks says it will publish about 15,000 more documents, ignoring demands by Washington to remove the material and return documents to the US government.
The White House said yesterday the leaders discussed efforts to avoid civilian suffering as well as the campaign to defeat the Taliban. It said General David Petraeus, commander of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan, and US ambassador Karl Eikenberry also took part in the call.
“Both leaders agreed that the United States and Afghanistan should continue to work together to keep the pressure on the Taliban and to build Afghan capacity,” the White House said in a statement.
Such deaths, often caused by air strikes, have angered ordinary Afghans who bear the brunt of the conflict.
General Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan, issued a new tactical directive last year to limit the use of air strikes after a series of incidents involving civilians. That directive has been tightened even further since Petraeus replaced McChrystal in June.
A UN report issued this week said civilian casualties had risen 31 per cent in the first six months of this year, with 1,271 killed. It said Taliban and other insurgents were responsible for 76 per cent of casualties.
Deaths caused by “pro-government forces” fell to 12 per cent of the total from 30 per cent in the same period last year, mainly as a 64 per cent fall in deaths caused by aerial attacks.
Nato forces have launched much fewer air strikes due to the tactical directives from issued by the US commanders.
Fighting in Afghanistan has intensified despite the presence of almost 150,000 foreign troops. US forces are preparing to start staged withdrawals from July 2011.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, right, speaks with the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the presidential palace in Kabul Afghanistan on Monday, July 19, 2010 in Kabul, Afghanistan, a day ahead of the International Conference on Afghanistan
Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Quresh gestures during a press conference, one day ahead of the International Conference on Afghanistan, Monday, July 19, 2010, in Kabul, accompanied by Pakistan's Ambassador to Afghanistan Mohammad Sadiq.
The strategy sits for now on a table in a locked-down Afghan capital: Hand over security in all 34 provinces to the government by the end of 2014 — more than three years after President Barack Obama's date for the start of an American troop drawdown.
Afghan police officers check vehicles as security measures are tightened ahead of the International Conference on Afghanistan in Kabul, Afghanistan, Monday, July 19, 2010. Some 40 foreign ministers are expected to attend the conference.
Afghan National Army soldiers walk towards their vehicles before going on a patrol at Combat Outpost Terra Nova in Kandahar, Afghanistan, Monday, July 19,
An Afghan National Army soldier prepares a machine gun before going on a patrol outside Combat Outpost Terra Nova, Kandahar, Afghanistan, Monday, July 19, 2010.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai meets British Foreign Secretary William Hague, Monday, July 19, 2010 in Kabul, Afghanistan, a day ahead of the International Conference on Afghanistan.
By Tuesday, it will be adopted at a one-day international conference, giving war-weary Americans and Europeans a date for when their involvement in Afghanistan may begin to come to an end. It will also give President Hamid Karzai a chance to show whether his struggling government is making progress toward running the country.
The conference comes at a time of growing anxiety in the U.S. and Europe about the course of the war — concerns underscored by Taliban attacks on Monday that killed six Afghan police and two American soldiers. A major security operation virtually shut down Kabul for the conference in which some 60 nations will focus on the postwar transition.
The country's intelligence agency arrested a number of insurgents Monday night who were camped out at a house in Kabul and presumably planning an attack on the city, said a police official who spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to comment on intelligence agency operations.
Officials with the intelligence agency declined to comment, saying they would make a formal statement in coming days.
Afghan officials want the U.S. and other international donors to give them a greater say in spending the billions of dollars in aid and reconstruction funds that have flowed into the country since the war began in 2001 — often with only limited results and amid allegations of corruption and mismanagement that have bolstered the Taliban in the eyes of many ordinary Afghans.
Talk of lofty development goals will take place against the backdrop of rising casualties, especially in the Taliban strongholds of the south and east.
Mindful that public patience is running out, the delegates will endorse the goal of gradually turning over security to Afghan forces by the time Karzai leaves office at the end of 2014, according to a draft communique obtained by The Associated Press.
The Afghan government and the international community are expected to agree on a plan to decide which of the 34 provinces would be ready for Afghan control and when. The communique however makes no mention of international troop levels during the transition period.
If NATO follows the model used in Iraq, the coalition will likely keep substantial numbers of troops in Afghanistan through much of the transition to help train Afghan forces and to intervene if the Afghans cannot control security and prevent the Taliban from mounting a comeback in provinces cleared of major insurgent forces.
Although Obama said in December that U.S. troops would begin coming home in July 2011, he did not say how many troops would leave then. Critics complained that the date signaled to the Taliban that all they had to do was hold out until the Americans and their allies were gone.
Vice President Joe Biden told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that the number of U.S. troops leaving Afghanistan "could be as few as a couple of thousand," but was once quoted as saying next July's drawdown would mean "a lot of people moving out."
In London, a senior British diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because final details of the communique have not yet been finalized, said the conference would likely agree that the process of handing over control to Afghan forces would begin early next year.
The diplomat said a NATO conference in Lisbon in October would decide which areas would be handed over immediately. A conference working paper on security says that during the transition, NATO troops may "remain in the lead in specific districts" of provinces nominally under Afghan control.
Ahead of the conference, representatives of Britain and Afghanistan's neighbor, Pakistan, said some troops may have to remain past 2014 to help train Afghan forces.
"We recognize that there'll be further work to do in terms of training and improving the quality of those forces beyond that, which is why we've said that training forces may be available after that date but we have made it very clear that that will not be combat forces," British Defense Secretary Liam Fox told the BBC on Sunday.
Speaking to reporters, Pakistan's foreign minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, expressed skepticism that the Afghans will be ready to take over security by 2014, saying "in my personal assessment, it might take longer."
"But again it depends on how quickly they are able to train their armed forces, their civilian law enforcement agencies, to take on the responsibility of security and protection of the ordinary Afghan citizen," said Qureshi, whose government has longtime ties to insurgents. He said Pakistan was ready to help the Afghans achieve stability "because we feel that a stable, peaceful, prosperous Afghanistan is in Pakistan's interest."
Underscoring the security challenge, bombs killed six Afghan policemen in the biggest southern city of Kandahar and two American troops in the south, Afghan and U.S. officials said. The American deaths brought to 42 the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan this month.
To demonstrate their commitment to good governance, Afghan officials have been working feverishly in recent weeks to prepare action plans with benchmarks for agriculture, reintegrating insurgents back into society and economic and social development.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is leading the U.S. delegation, told reporters the Kabul conference "is going to show more Afghan ownership and leadership, which is something we've been pushing." She said the U.S. is "pressing the Afghan government at all levels to be more accountable, to go after corruption," but that the U.S. also had a responsibility to improve management of its programs.
The Afghans have long complained that the U.S. and other donors have squandered aid money through hiring overpriced international contractors and pursuing development projects that the country does not need or cannot afford to maintain.
Since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion that toppled the Taliban, 77 percent of the $29 billion in international aid spent in Afghanistan has been disbursed on projects with little or no input from Afghan government officials, according to the Afghan Ministry of Finance's 2009 donor financial review.
At a January meeting in London, donor nations agreed to have half of development aid delivered through the Afghan government to 50 percent in two years.
On Tuesday, Karzai will ask the international community to restate this commitment and to align at least 80 percent of development and governance assistance over the next two years to a list of more than 20 national priority programs being introduced at the conference. In return, Karzai's government will promise to improve its financial management system, improve collection of taxes and customs revenues and fight corruption.
Kanzai ired US allied with comments with local leaders in Afganisthan.
Kanzai told tribal elders on Sunday that government officials should not let "foreigners" interfere in their work. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, center, surrounded by his body guards walks through Kandahar city, south of Kabul,
The United States suggested on Tuesday it might cancel a meeting between President Barack Obama and President Hamid Karzai in the White House next month if the Afghan leader persisted with anti-Western comments.
Intensifying tensions between the two nations, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that a series of critical comments by Karzai was "troubling" and "confusing".
Pressed to say whether the May 12 meeting might be called off, Gibbs told reporters: "We certainly would evaluate whatever continued or further remarks President Karzai makes, as to whether that's constructive to have such a meeting."
Among comments that have angered his backers, Karzai accused embassies of perpetrating election fraud in Afghanistan last year and of seeking to weaken him. He told tribal elders on Sunday that government officials should not let "foreigners" interfere in their work.
Asked whether Karzai was still viewed as an ally of the United States after those comments, Gibbs replied: "Karzai is the democratically elected leader of Afghanistan."
Initially the Obama administration sought to play down Karzai's comments saying they were aimed at placating his domestic audience. But in recent days, Gibbs and others have taken a tougher line.
"We will not hesitate to ensure that the remarkable investment that our men and women are making is met with the type of governance that has to be in place in order to secure parts of a dangerous country," said Gibbs.
The White House earlier said it was frustrated on behalf of the American public, and invoked the sacrifice made by families who send their loved ones off to fight in the Afghanistan war.
There are more than 120,000 Western troops in Afghanistan, including more than 80,000 Americans, set to rise to 100,000 Americans this year.
CONGRESSIONAL IRE
Karzai's anti-Western tone was particularly embarrassing for the White House as it came days after Obama made his first trip to Afghanistan since he took office in January 2009.
During that trip, Obama pushed the Afghan government hard on tackling corruption, a longtime irritant for Washington.
Karzai's outbursts have also raised the hackles of U.S. lawmakers whose support is crucial to fund the war effort.
Prominent Democratic Representative Jane Harman added to a chorus of complaints, telling Reuters that Obama should reassess whether Karzai was a "willing partner" needed for his counterinsurgency strategy to work.
"Karzai's recent comments are extremely troubling and I am personally very disappointed in his effort to control corruption in his country," said Harman, chairwoman of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence.
She added: "I'm somewhat skeptical we can achieve our objectives in Afghanistan."
Karzai has sought to ease tensions with the Obama administration, calling U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last Friday to clarify his remarks but not to apologize. Two days later, he made more disparaging comments.
Public support for the Taliban hit an "all-time high" in Kandahar province last spring just as the United States was preparing to pour in the first wave of military reinforcements, polling data compiled by the Canadian military suggests.
The data, obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information laws, provide a fascinating look at the disenchantment of ordinary Afghans, and perhaps illustrate the method behind the madness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's recent anti-Western rants.
The survey, conducted as part of the military's spring 2009 campaign assessment, illustrates just how much resistance there was even a year ago to the growing U.S. troop buildup in Kandahar.
"International economic assistance is heavily preferred over military assistance," the report said of Afghan public opinion.
A startling 25 per cent of those asked said they had a favourable view of the Taliban, including six per cent with a "very favourable" opinion.
A human rights group said the sentiments captured in the poll are still present today and cast doubt on whether Karzai will get unanimous public support in Kandahar for NATO's forthcoming offensive.
On Sunday, the president said the sweep would not proceed if locals didn't want it.
In remarks to Afghan parliamentarians last week, Karzai accused the United States and other Western governments of wanting a "puppet government" in Afghanistan and alleged they engineered widespread fraud during last fall's corrupt national elections.
He later dropped another bombshell, telling a number of Afghan members of parliament that if foreigners continued to meddle in Afghanistan, he'd be forced "to join the Taliban."
On Tuesday, the White House said it would consider cancelling Karzai's scheduled visit next month if his remarks continue to be troubling.
"We certainly would evaluate whatever continued or further remarks President Karzai makes as to whether that's constructive to have such a meeting," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said of the visit.
Karzai is scheduled to meet May 12 with U.S. President Barack Obama.
One of the survey's most important findings was the growing mistrust of NATO troops, where a full one-third said they had an unfavourable impression of foreign soldiers.
"The Taliban (is) not winning public consent," said the study. "Afghans still strongly prefer the (government of Afghanistan), but confidence is waning due to lack of security, justice, basic services."
The report's analysis focused on the tide of rising violence that followed the spectacular attack on Sarpoza prison in June 2008, a seminal event that ground commanders hoped would only dent public confidence.
As it turned out, the perception of insecurity it created was long-standing and the numbers did not "bounce back" as expected, the survey noted.
"Fewer Kandaharis report feeling safe than in previous polls; more believe that security is worsening than improving," said the study, carried out in February 2009.
The poll was conducted in most major provincial districts, but the military did not release details about the sample size or methodology. The army has been conducting regular surveys of the Afghan population since 2007.
Ajmal Samadi, director of the human-rights group Afghanistan Rights Monitor, said foreigners have a hard time understanding the complexity of political culture in Kandahar and assume that just because they hate the Taliban, everyone hates the hard-line Islamist group.
"People look at it as though the Taliban - and even Al-Qaida - did not harm them, even though they were harsh," Samadi said Tuesday in an interview from Kabul.
The western media often refers to Kandahar as the birthplace of the Taliban, without ever thinking about what that really means, he added.
"The Taliban is still a political force in Kandahar. It is the reality on the ground," Samadi said.
"They governed Afghanistan from Kandahar. They made people feel strong. They felt empowered under the Taliban. They felt safe. And now that is all gone. Look at what is happening now with corruption. The road to Kabul is not safe."
The governor of the province didn't dispute the poll findings, but said that the people in some rural areas are compelled to cast their vote for the insurgency.
"The people in the villages and rural areas are hostages," Tooryalai Wesa said Tuesday night in an interview. "They are forced to say they support the Taliban in areas where the government is still weak. They have to compromise."
He said he believes that once the offensive is explained to people, they will support it because privately many district leaders acknowledge that there are pockets of insurgents that must be cleared out.
"There is a misconception," said Wesa. "They were thinking it was tanks. They were thinking it was artillery. They were thinking it was bombing."
Once the governance aspects are explained, Wesa said, people become more receptive.
Samadi scoffed at that argument, saying people are jaded after eight years of unfulfilled promises from Karzai, whom they see as being out for only for his own tribe, the Popalzai.
"It's too late for Karzai to show off this drama of independence," he said.
"I don't believe he convinced Kandaharis, who see him as a puppet. I'm sorry to be so pessimistic."
Danger zone: A U.S. Marine dodges an IED blast in Afghanistan (file picture)
Ruper Hamer: Killed in a blast while embedded with U.S. Marine Corps
A British journalist was killed in an explosion in Afghanistan yesterday, the Ministry of Defence announced today.
Father-of-three Rupert Hamer, the Sunday Mirror's defence correspondent, died of his wounds at the scene north-west of Nawa.
The newspaper's photographer, Philip Coburn, was injured in the blast, which also killed a US Marine and an Afghan soldier.
Mr Coburn, who is in a serious but stable condition, and Mr Hamer, 39, were embedded with the U.S. Marine Corps when they were caught in the explosion.
They were accompanying a patrol when their vehicle struck an improvised explosive device.
Mr Hamer is the first British journalist to die during the Afghanistan conflict and the first correspondent to be killed in a warzone since ITN reporter Terry Lloyd in Iraq in 2003.
The journalist, who was known as 'Corporal Hamer' by colleagues, was making his fifth trip to Afghanistan when he died.
Since become the Sunday Mirror's defence correspondent in 2004, Mr Hamer had also covered the armed forces across the Middle East and central Asia, the Oman, Bahrain, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Today Prime Minister Gordon Brown said: ‘I was deeply saddened by this tragic news, and my heartfelt thoughts and sympathies are with the families, friends and colleagues of Rupert and Philip.
‘Their courage, skill and dedication to reporting from the frontline was incredibly important and ensured that the world could see and read about our heroic troops.
‘Their professionalism and commitment to our forces will not be forgotten.’
Coburn, 43, and Hamer flew to the region on New Year's Eve on a trip that was to have lasted a month, the Sunday Mirror said.
Hamer, who was married to Helen, had three children, aged six, five and 19 months.
He had worked for the newspaper for 12 years and colleagues paid tribute to a 'fine, fearless and skilled writer'.
Coburn has been at the Sunday Mirror for eight years, covering stories including Hurricane Katrina.
Sunday Mirror editor Tina Weaver said: 'Rupert believed that the only place to report a war was from the frontline, and as our defence correspondent he wanted to be embedded with the US marines at the start of their vital surge into southern Afghanistan.
'He left on New Year's Eve with photographer Phil Coburn, determined to be there from the start.
'He was a seasoned, highly-regarded and brave journalist who had reported from both Iraq and Afghanistan on many occasions.
'It was his fifth trip to Afghanistan, and he had forged friendships with a number of the soldiers serving out there.'
He had organised a special Christmas newspaper produced for the troops packed with messages from loved ones, which was flown out by the RAF three weeks ago, she said.
'He was a fine, fearless, and skilled writer who joined the paper 12 years ago,' she added. 'Affectionately known as Corporal Hamer in the office, he was a gregarious figure, a wonderful friend who was hugely popular with his colleagues.
'Above all he was devoted to his wife Helen and their three young children.
'Our thoughts and condolences are with Helen, his father Nick, who he was so close to, and the children he was so proud of.'
She described Coburn as a 'consummate all round journalist and brilliant photographer'.
She added: 'He and Rupert made a dedicated team, working together around the world, sacrificing personal comfort countless times to record the reality of wars.
'We wish Phil a speedy recovery and send our warmest wishes to his partner and family.'
Defence secretary Bob Ainsworth said: 'Both Rupert Hamer and Phil Coburn accompanied me on my most recent trip to Afghanistan.
'I got to know them well and I was impressed by their hard work and professionalism.
'My thoughts and deepest sympathies are with the families, friends and colleagues of both men at this extremely distressing time.
'As a defence correspondent, Rupert Hamer was in regular contact with press officers at the MoD.
'I know they had great respect for his work and the news of his death has been met with great sadness amongst us all.
'In recent weeks we worked closely with Rupert on a special Christmas edition of the Sunday Mirror, containing messages for deployed personnel from their loved ones.
'The paper was very well received by troops on the ground and its success is testament both to Rupert's hard work and his understanding of service personnel.
'The sacrifice of service personnel is well documented and rightly respected, but this news demonstrates the risks also faced by journalists who keep the public informed of events on the frontline.'
A U.S. Army cadet reads a book entitled 'Kill Bin Laden' as he waits with other cadets for U.S. President Barack Obama to deliver his address
Another U.S. Army cadet reads an apporpriately titled book before the speech this morning. IN the book, author Dave Grossman investigates the psychology of killing in combat
President Obama speaks in Eisenhower Hall at the United States Military Academy last night
Anti-war demonstrators stand in front of Thayer Gate at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point last night
Ranks of soldiers at West Point bow their heads in silence before they listen to President Obama
Meeting the man: Cadets line up to shake hands with their president following his speech
Barack Obama is photographed with cadets after he spoke in Eisenhower Hall at the United States Military Academy this morning
Line up: Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates (second right) joins Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Administration Mike Mullen, and General David Petraeus
U.S. soldiers patrol through the heart of Kabul, Afghanistan, this morning. Many Afghans were still sleeping when President Barack Obama announced he was sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to the war
Sergeant Joseph Delair of Syracuse, New York, fingerprints and photographs men from a nearby village at the Sahowza District Centre this morning. The men are registered and checked in the system to make sure they are not wanted as an enemy combatant
Commons dispute: Gordon Brown and David Cameron at Prime Minister's Questions. The Tory leader accused the Mr Brown giving 'false expectations' to British troops over the start of a pull-out from Afghanistan
Gordon Brown was today accused of allowing the public to be misled about when British troops would start withdrawing from Afganistan.
As Barack Obama unveiled plans to send an extra 30,000 U.S. soldiers to the country, the Prime Minister clashed with David Cameron over Britain's military strategy.
Mr Cameron told MPs the Prime Minister at the weekend had said he was looking at transferring at least five Afghan provinces to Afghan control by the end of 2010, including parts of Helmand.
'This was widely interpreted as a commitment to start the withdrawal of British troops in 2010. It's important we don't give false expectations to British troops or mixed messages to anybody else.
'Can you clarify whether you would expect British troop numbers to start reducing in 2010 or 2011.'
The question came after Barack Obama unveiled an ambitious strategy to begin withdrawals from the war-torn country in 2011.
Mr Brown said he had made it absolutely clear that 'there was no question of us withdrawing our troops until the point that we were sure that the Afghans could take over security control themselves'.
He told Mr Cameron: 'Even if one or two parts of a district or a province are transferred in 2010, we will continue to have our troops in Afghanistan at that point.
'By 2011 there will be over 300,000 troops - Afghan, American, British and coalition troops - and that is the point at which the balance between Afghan forces and British, American and coalition troops, will start to change.'
Last night, in a highly-anticipated address, the U.S. leader pledged to bring the conflict to a 'successful conclusion' by introducing the surge as quickly as possible.
But while increasing the total American presence in the region to almost 100,000 by next summer, Mr Obama warned that the commitment would not be open-ended.
He set out plans for Afghan security forces to be trained to a sufficient level to enable the US to start pulling troops out as early as July 2011.
The president also appealed to the America's allies to step up their own commitments in the region, insisting: 'This is not just America's war.'
His strategy was endorsed by Mr Brown, who was briefed by his U.S. counterpart in advance of the speech.
The Prime Minister, who announced this week that the UK's military commitment would be increased to more than 10,000 troops, said: 'I call on all our allies to unite behind President Obama's strategy.
'Britain will continue to play its full part in persuading other countries to offer troops to the Afghanistan campaign.'
The Prime Minister said that the London conference on Afghanistan that he has called for January 28 would be a 'vital next stage'.
'It will offer an opportunity to agree a process to transfer provinces and districts to Afghan control; to make decisions on new civilian co-ordination in Afghanistan; and to support commitments by President Karzai on Afghan reforms to build up the Afghan army and police, and local governance; and to secure further support from international partners,' he said.
Chief of the Defence Staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup said he was 'delighted' with Mr Obama's announcement.
'It's what all of us who have been involved in the operation in Afghanistan have assessed is required if we are to resource a plan to deliver the strategy which we have been holding to for some time now,' he said.
He said the US was providing three-quarters of the 40,000 troops Gen McChrystal said were necessary. Britain had provided 1,200 more from the point at which the US general made his assessment.
'They didn't ask for more and we didn't say 'no',' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Sir Jock dismissed suggestions that British troops were set to take a reserve role behind American forces in Helmand.
'I do expect the command structure in the south to change for the simple reason that that's where the main fight is and, therefore, that's where Nato is concentrating its effort, quite rightly,' he said.
'But that means that the span of command within the regional command south area is now going to become too large and I think Gen McChrystal is going to have to divide it in some way to retain a sensible span of command.'
But he added: 'I expect the the British contribution to remain centred in Helmand for some time to come at the very least.'
This morning's announcement came more than three months after the White House received a report from the US's top commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal recommending about 40,000 extra soldiers were needed.
Mr Obama, in a speech to a military academy in West Point, New York state, indicated he had opted to go with fewer, but will deploy troops in a quicker time-frame that previously thought.
The accelerated schedule will see some additional troops in in place by Christmas, it has been suggested, with the rest deployed by next summer.
The new strategy consists of three core elements: a renewed military effort; a civilian surge to reinforce positive action, and an effective partnership with Pakistan, Mr Obama said.
He acknowledged the difficulty allied forces face in reversing the fortunes in the flagging conflict.
'Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards,' he said, adding that the Taliban had gained momentum while the Afghanistan-Pakistan border remained a safe-haven for al Qaida.
That was why it was in America's 'vital national interest' to send additional troops to Afghanistan, the president added.
'These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.'
This withdrawal will commence within 18 months, he pledged.
Mr Obama added that the US's military aim in the region remained the same: 'To disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda.'
To achieve this, the US will swell troop numbers in the region while also training an Afghan national army and police force, he added.
He said: 'The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 - the fastest pace possible - so they can target the insurgency and secure key population centres.
They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight.
'And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.'
He also pushed other members of the coalition to up their presence in a bid to end the conflict, uphold Nato's credibility and bring security to the wider international community.
The president said: 'Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully.
'For what's at stake is not simply a test of Nato's credibility - what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.'
Gen McChrystal, commander of Nato's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, said: 'The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the president has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task.
'The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the president's address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.'
Former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: 'Barack Obama has staked his presidency on the roll of the military dice.
'This is his war now and his presidency will be defined by the outcome.
'Success will depend on the capacity of the (Afghan President Hamid) Karzai government to fulfil its obligations.
'Obama will be dependent on Karzai stepping up to the plate.'
There has been criticism of the time Mr Obama has taken to reach the decision he announced today.
But Louis Susman, the U.S. ambassador to London, said the president would make a decision of this importance unless his 'heart, his head and his gut' were in it.
'I think the three months was necessary to make a proper analysis of the right strategy to go in and end this war,' he said.
'The issue was never whether we make 1,000 troops or 30,000 troops - it doesn't make any difference if you don't have the right strategy.
'And I think he felt after 10 meetings and fully discussing this with all constituencies of our government that this was the right decision.'
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that many US senators had 'concerns' but predicted that Congress would be 'substantially united' behind the plans.
