Article/Opinion

“Every human has the right of conscience, religion and thought liberty” (Article 18) “Liberty of convictions and free expression of them” (Article 19)
“The education must promote understanding, tolerance and friendship between all nations, racial and religion groups” (Article 26)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948
“Persons belonging to national minorities have the right to exercise fully and effectively their human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination and in full equality before the law. The participating States will adopt, where necessary, special measures for the purpose of ensuring to persons belonging to national minorities full equality with the other citizens in the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms”
(31) Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE
“The States Parties to the present Convention, taking due account of the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child” (Preamble)
“States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's national, ethnic or social origin…”(Article 2)
Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989
“Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status” (Article 2)
United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights December 16,1966
“The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status” (Preamble, Article 2)
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights December 16, 1966
“States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races, and, to this end: (a) Each State Party undertakes to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions and to en sure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation” (Article 2) In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights (Article 5)
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination December 21, 1965
Multi-ethnic and multicultural community in Kazakhstan
UN General Secretary, Kofi Annan,
“Kazakhstan may serve as example of a peaceful multiethnic countrywhere ethnic diversity is a blessing, but not the curses”
Historically Kazakhstan has always been a crossroads of various religions, such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, all of which have greatly influenced the development of the human race. The territory of Kazakhstan was one of the most important sections of the Great Silk Road, connecting countries through trade and cultural exchange and playing the role of a bridge between East and West.
Over several years the dynamics of demographic processes and migration have made Kazakhstan into one of the most multinational, multiconfessional, multiethnic countries in the world.
There are approximately 130 ethnic groups living in Kazakhstan. In July 2006, the population included the following main ethnic groups: Kazakh (58.9%), Russian (25.9%), Ukrainian (2.9%), Uzbek (2.8%), Uighur, Tatar, and German (1.5% each), and other groups (4%).
For 16 years Kazakhstan has implemented a considerable state policy of multi-ethnic society revival, self-preservation and unity, and multicultural development promoting. Kazakhstan national policy is based on transparent and clear postulation principles such as inter-ethnic cooperation, social stability as a foundation for the fair ethnic issues solution, rule of law, state independence strengthening, and an active policy of integration.
Those principles are aligned with the international law and the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
According to information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kazakhstan had on 11th February 2007 become a signatory of 160 international agreements including the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
International law and the Constitution of Kazakhstan state that everyone has rights and freedoms regardless of race, colour, and ethnic or social origin. These principles are enshrined in Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in Article 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
The Constitution of Kazakhstan also states that everyone is equal before the law (Article 14). No one shall be subject to any discrimination for reasons of origin, social or property status, occupation, sex, race, nationality, language, religion, convictions, place of residence or any other factors (Article 14, item 2). Violation of the right to equality (in particular in connection with such factors as race, nationality or religion) is punishable by the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan.
The United Nations has praised Kazakhstan’s implementation of international conventions. In the Report on Human Rights in Kazakhstan of 2007, the UN experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination stated that all necessary conditions for the peaceful coexistence of different ethnic groups and confessions had been created. The recommendations elaborated by the Committee after considering Kazakhstan’s report are now being implemented in steps by the Government of Kazakhstan.
Provision of equal rights regardless of nationality is a sign of respect to every ethnic group and promotes the elimination of ethnic prejudices.
The right to speak one’s native language is closely connected with the right to choose one’s nationality and language of communication. The right to learn native languages and the way in which this right is guaranteed in Kazakhstan are reflected in the Constitution of Kazakhstan (Article 7, item 3 and Article 19, item 2). Article 6 of Kazakhstan’s law On Languages lays down the following rights: “to choose any language of communication, upbringing, education and creative work. The Government creates conditions for the learning and development of all nations’ languages in Kazakhstan.”
(To be continued)
(Continued from Yesterday)
Language policy in educational institutions is implemented in accordance with the Constitution and legislation of Kazakhstan. All educational institutions regardless of property and form of education provide teaching in and develop Kazakh as their official language, and provide for the learning of Russian in accordance with official compulsory standards for each level. Newspapers and magazines are published not only in Kazakh and Russian but also in eleven other languages including Ukrainian, Polish, English, German, Korean, Uigur, Turkish, and Dungan.
Among them there are national editions - the Korean “Kore ilbo”, the Ukrainian “Ukrainski novini”, the German “Deutsche allgemeine Zeitung” and the Uighur “Uighur avazi”, all of which are state publications and are funded from the state budget.
Polish TV “Polonia” is broadcasted in the northern region, and Uzbek TV is broadcasted in the southern region. The National TV company “Kazakhstan” and “Kazakh Radio” broadcast programmes in Korean, Uighur and German. In addition to these, the mass media of all ethnic groups in Kazakhstan receive financial support from the Government, which is not the case in many other countries.
In the 2007 Report on Human Rights in Kazakhstan noted, “Kazakhstan wishes every nationality to live a full life, to revive its own language, traditions, culture, to have equal rights and opportunities regardless of nationality, language, religion, to feel themselves as the citizens of sovereign Kazakhstan and to be proud of this fact.”
The bright example of the securing of national identity is provided by the Dungan ethnic group, which has preserved its written language and culture with outstanding success.
The inter-ethnic concord is being promoted vigorously in Kazakhstan. That can be approved by a wide range of institutions and activities: schools teaching native languages, Sunday schools run by the so-called “ethnic cultural centres” devoted to the study of native languages and traditions, theatres, events put on by ethnic groups, and the publication and broadcasting of mass media in a wide variety of languages, reflecting the presence of the ethnic groups in any given area. For instance, 16 native languages (including German, Polish, Ukrainian, Korean, Tatar, Turkish, Chechen, Azerbaijani, Kurdish, and Uighur) are taught in educational institutions.
In accordance with the National Programme on Functioning and Development of Languages in 2001–2010, educational institutions guarantee the right of ethnic groups to study their native languages.
In 2003–2004, of 3 million pupils at school in Kazakhstan, 20,000 (0.7%) were studying in the Uighur language, 90,000 (2.9%) in Uzbek, 3,000 (0.09%) in Tajik, and 165 in Ukrainian.
In 2005–2006, of 3 million pupils at school in Kazakhstan, 1.5 million (57.4%) were studying in the Kazakh language, 1 million (38.8%) in Russian, 17,000 (0.6%) in Uighur, 83,000 (3%) in Uzbek, 3,000 (0.1%) in Tajik, 178 in Ukrainian, and 485 in German.
More than 3,500 children are now learning their native languages in 79 Sunday schools, while in 2005 there were 76 Sunday-schools with a total of 3,000 pupils.
In accordance with Articles 4 and 36 of the law On Education, the Government guarantees free secondary education, based on national official standards, for every citizen of Kazakhstan including those from the ethnic minorities. Children of foreign citizens, “oralmans” (Kazakh repatriates), expatriates and refugees permanently living in Kazakhstan receive free secondary education in national educational institutions.
Thus, Kazakhstan has all conditions for satisfying the needs of ethnic groups and for promoting harmonious inter-ethnic relations.
Government measures undertaken to protect the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of ethnic groups meet the standards of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities.
Assembly of People of Kazakhstan
During the first stages of independence, Kazakhstan had to cope with the complications of increasing globalization, cultural interconnection and migration flows. There was a need for a new generation in Kazakhstan who understands value of mutual respect, openness, and trust, regardless of origin and nationality.
There was also a clear need to create a new social institution capable of carrying out important tasks related to the stability reinforcement in the multi-ethnic Kazakh land. In 1995 presidential decree brought into being a new and innovative consultative and advisory body under the President - the Assembly of People of Kazakhstan (APK).
The main goal of the Assembly is to strengthen social stability and thereby to provide a basis for the fair solution of ethnic issues.
The Chairman of the Assembly chooses the APK’s members from the representatives of state authorities, national and cultural unions and social organizations, and from the ranks of those active in social politics.
The Assembly is fifteen years old now and the world community has shown great interest in Kazakhstan’s experience, which is also highly valued by international experts. They believe Kazakhstan can be taken by other countries as an example for the peaceful coexistence of different confessions and ethnic groups.
The following ethnic groups are represented in the Assembly: German (49 members), Kazakh (40), Korean (36), Tatar (29), Slav (27), Chechen and Ingush (26), Azerbaijani (23), Uighur (21), Russian (20), Ukrainian (19), Jewish (18), Polish (16), Turkish (14), Greek (12), Armenian (11), Byelorussian (10), Dungan (10), Kurd (8), Uzbek (8), Cossack (6), with the Turkmen, Bulgarians and Dagestanian having four members each, the Kyrgyz and Tajik three members each, the Karachaev, Balkarian, Chinese, Chuvash and Karakalpak two members each, and the Assyrian, Czech, Baltic nations, Georgian, Osetin, Lezgin, Iranian, Buryat, Hungarian and Romanian one member each.
The number of ethnic cultural centres was tripled during the years of reforms. The Small Regional Assembly of Kazakhstan People in Almaty was established in 1995. Including more than 30 ethnic cultural centres, the Small Regional Assembly in Almaty became a very important centre of public diplomacy, with its constant connection to ethnic groups and their historical motherlands. Civil peace and domestic stability play a crucial role in it. Such festivals as “Atameken”, “Menin Otanym”, and “We are – people of Kazakhstan” became very popular in Kazakhstan.
The Assembly’s activities maintain the growth of Kazakhstan’s international authority as a country with a notable capacity for solving problems in the field of inter-ethnic relations. The Assembly’s contribution is highly appreciated by foreign leaders. Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, visiting our country, called it
“an example of international consent and stable development for other countries.”
The same sentiments have been expressed by President Jacques Chirac, King Fahd Ben Abdel Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, and John Paul II.
(To Be Continued)

By: Ali Raza Hussaini
The institutions coming to existence after wars and with different motto statements have undertaken greater role to keep peace and promote integrity. But the growing threats rising from hunger to economic recession and violent terrorist birth is challenging their effectiveness and future role. The concern to change and adapt the world order is obvious especially with big institutions with decision-making role.
The forthcoming G8 Summit from July 7 to 9 in Japan displays the contrast combination of the world’s biggest power to debate the most contentious issues facing humanity.
Leaders of seven of the world’s richest democracies, plus oil-and gas-fired Russia, gather this year in Toyako, on Hokkaido in northern Japan, to ruminate on climate change, rising food and energy prices, and the best way to combat global scourges from disease to nuclear proliferation.
But in an age when people, money and goods move around as never before, this little group no longer commands the heights of the global economy and the world’s financial system as the core G7 used to do when their small, purposeful gatherings of the democratic world’s consenting capitalists first got going in the 1970s. Nowadays summits produce mostly lengthy communiqués and photo-opportunities. At the pinnacle of world political management, but looking increasingly anachronistic, is the UN Security Council. Of its 15 members, ten rotate at the whim of the various UN regional groupings. The other five, which wield vetoes and are permanent, are America, Russia, China, Britain and France, roughly speaking the victors of the last long-ago world war. Alongside them is a secretary-general who is head of the world’s most prestigious organization.
Though criticized for little or not due role in preventing wars, the Security Council still operates with the highest mandate to prevent or decide about critical military action . Meanwhile, the world had to be saved not just from another war, but from a repeat of the Great Depression of the 1930s.
That job involves other big institutions: the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), jointly known as the Bretton Woods institutions after the place of their creation; the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, a rich-country think-tank set up in 1961; the much older central bankers’ Bank for International Settlements; and the World Trade Organization (WTO, formerly the GATT). They have been buttressed too by conventions, conferences, courts, declarations, dispute-mechanisms, special mandates and treaties governing everything from human rights to anti-dumping complaints.
The whole elaborate architecture has had extra underpinning from strong regional organizations, such as the European Union, and less elaborate ones like the African Union and the various talking-shops of Latin America, the Arab world and Asia, as well as from steadying alliances, such as NATO.
As a result, there has been no return to the disastrous global conflicts of the first half of the 20th century. Yet that very success has become one of three powerful pressures to adjust the way the world is run, as new economic winners demand a say. Pressure also stems from intensifying resentment and frustration. After ringing declarations on human rights and even the adoption by a UN world summit in 2005 of a “responsibility to protect” against genocide and crimes against humanity, the UN Security Council still finds itself unable to agree to do much to protect the people of Darfur, Zimbabwe, Myanmar and others from the murderous contempt of their rulers—just as in the 1990s the UN failed the genocide victims in Rwanda. The council can not agree with the same situation in the future.
This serious tarnishes its credibility and acceptance to victims of organized crime and torments. If the Security Council, with a charter of high principles at its back, shows such feebleness towards tyrants (or to those who cavalierly flout nuclear treaties), doesn’t it deserve to be bypassed? John McCain, the Republican candidate for president of the United States, supports the creation of a new League of Democracies which, its boosters argue, would have not only the moral legitimacy but also the will to right the world’s wrongs effectively.
The third impetus to reign the way the world organizes itself is a dawning realization on the part of governments, rich and poor, that the biggest challenges shaping their future—climate change, the flaws and the forces of globalization, the scramble for resources, state failure, mass terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction—often need global, not just national or regional, solutions. The shift in 21st-century economic power alone is justification for rebalancing influence in the top clubs. Much harder to figure out is which bits of the global architecture need mere tweaking, which need retooling or replacing—and who should have the right to decide.
Globalization's increasingly unfettered flow of information, technology, capital, goods, services and people has helped spread opportunity and influence far and wide. To re-emergent China and Russia, add not just India but Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Australia, to name just some of the new winners as money changes pockets and the world turns faster.
The proposed modern map of power and influence should also include the role of transformational tools such as the internet; manipulators from lobbying NGOs to terrorist groups; profit-takers such as global corporations and sovereign wealth funds; and unpredictable forces such as global financial flows. The principal characteristic of this world is not multi-polarity but “non-polarity”. Dozens of actors, exercising different kinds of power, vastly complicate the effort to find a better balance of influence and responsibility.
But there could be no excuse for change to foster efficiency and swiftness. The plan to achieve this has just begun and the result would be of high international importance.
(Ali Raza Hussaini is Permanent Writer of Daily Outlook Afghanistan and writes on national and international issues. He can be reached through Mail@outlookafghanistan.com)

By: Jayanthi Natarajan
Perhaps the most important reason why the Indo-US agreement has become the subject of heated debate in India is the fact that it is in many ways a major foreign policy achievement for India, as well as a tremendous opportunity for India to end its nuclear isolation, and join the leading nuclear countries of the world as an equal partner. It is difficult to imagine any other international treaty that has generated quite so much discussion, within the country.
The 123 Agreement deals with civil nuclear energy cooperation and allows us supplies of uranium as source material to be used in reactors, manufactured in India as well as those that will be allowed to be imported for generation of electricity to broaden the basket of options to meet the exponential increase in the demand for power in India. Today, India generates about 130,000 MW of power including power generated in captive units and this is far short of the requirements of our growing economy. Power generated from our nuclear facilities represents less than 3 per cent of the total power generated, just about 2,700 MW. Assuming that by 2020, the demand for electricity is somewhere around 230,000 MW, we need to nearly double our electricity generation by that year. Although we have hydroelectric, and thermal plants, and a significant wind power potential, the 123 agreement is very crucial, because it will help us to substantially boost our energy security, to generate, clean nuclear energy, up to about 20,000 MW. A large number of countries under the NPT regime having signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) are in a position to access source material to take advantage of nuclear energy used for civilian purposes. We have very small reserves of uranium in our country and without the import of uranium 235, we cannot go ahead with our civil nuclear energy programme.
The 123 Agreement allows us to support our nuclear facilities meant for weaponisation and also those meant for civil nuclear energy generation. Of the 22 such nuclear facilities, 14 of them under the separation plan placed before Parliament, will be under safeguards and 8 of them not subject to any safeguards. Safeguards amongst other things imply that any use of source material, namely, uranium 235 will be used only for the generation of energy and no part of that material will be diverted to our weapons programme. It is for the first time in the history of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime that such an exception has been made by putting in place an arrangement under which India will receive uranium 235 for use in our civil nuclear energy programme. Until now, agreements have only been entered into between two nuclear weapon states, or between nuclear weapon states, and a state, which has signed the NPT. Thus this 123 agreement represents a major breakthrough for India, in as much as it has opened the door for India's membership of the exclusive nuclear club, while still standing firmly for a non-discriminatory nuclear-non proliferation regime.
Thus, under the 123 agreement, we place 14 Indian facilities under India-specific IAEA safeguards, and acquire the right to receive uranium 235 from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, after negotiations with them. We also acquire the right to reprocess the spent fuel used in the reactors, which are under safeguards, provided there is no diversion of this for the purpose of weaponisation.
The 123 agreement also opens up huge opportunities of cooperation in the field of biological research, medicine, agriculture and industry, environment and climate change, and fusion technology and participating in bilateral and multilateral programmes for purposes of research and development. This provides enormous opportunities for our scientific community to interact with states possessing technology at the high end and gain access and experience in respect of technologies that thus far have been unavailable to India.
Those who oppose the 123 agreement in India, offer the incorrect argument that it will compromise India's independent foreign policy. This is demonstrably incorrect. The terms of the agreement make it very clear, that there will be no interference or hindrance in India's internal affairs. In the event of disagreement, either country has the option to give notice, and invoke the termination clause. The much talked about Hyde Act, is an act that applies to the US, and not to India, and in any event, Article 2(4) of the 123 agreement, makes it amply clear that nothing will bind India's right to use its nuclear fuel, obtained from sources other than the 123 agreements, so as to take forward inter alia, its weaponisation programme.
India has a firm commitment to peace, and universal disarmament. Our Independence movement was unique in the history of the world, in as much as it was a bloodless revolution, based upon the twin principles of truth, and ahimsa, or non-violence. The Father of our nation, Mahatma Gandhi, gave to India, and the world the noble philosophy of satyagraha and ahimsa, and it is apparent, as the world grows smaller every day, that it is these universal virtues of truth, tolerance, and non-violence, which will save the world from a nuclear holocaust. Thus, while India takes its place as an equal partner in the comity of nations, we are committed to the values of peace and disarmament. However, India is also strong and principled. We have the power and will to resist discrimination, and nuclear apartheid, and while we are committed to peace, we will fight to ensure that the quest for peace is universal, and not discriminatory. All nations should strive equally for peace, and share an equal commitment to disarmament, and in this initiative, some should not be more equal than others.
Thus, the Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement is a giant step forward in establishing an equitable, non-discriminatory nuclear world regime. While the agreement benefits India, in various important ways, the world order at large will be more just and equitable, with the inclusion of India, the largest democracy in the world, as an equal partner of the nuclear weapons countries.
(Courtesy Gulf News)
The writer is a Member of Indian Parliament from Tamil Nadu and spokesperson of India's ruling Congress party.

By: GIACOMO LUCIANI
Saudi Arabia has taken a courageous step in calling for a conference of oil producers, consumers, companies and "speculators" to discuss the runaway price of oil, but the Kingdom risks being proved unable to bring prices back to the level that it sees desirable.
In a market in which demand continuously rises while supply is constrained, investors have reached the conclusion that prices can move in only one direction: upwards.
At the same time, the US balance of trade and federal budget deficits, coupled with the excessive level of debt throughout the American economy, have convinced investors that the dollar also can move in only one direction: downwards. The announcement that Saudi Arabia will increase production to about 9.7 million b/d will have little impact on this reality.
The problem of the oil market is not that it attracts "speculators": traders and investors are needed for liquidity and risk management. The problem is rather that the oil market lacks a "reality check". In most other markets, if "speculators" temporarily push the price beyond or below what is justified by fundamentals, the latter finally prevail and speculators are punished. In contrast, the oil market lacks an effective "reality check", because the price of all major crude oil streams - notably the Saudi Arabian crude oils — are indexed to the prices of futures contracts, which are financial instruments.
There is no physical market for oil which may discipline speculation. Buyers of physical oil - refiners and traders — are price takers, and the price that is offered to them is dictated by the futures market. In turn, refiners pass on price increases to the final consumer, whose demand tends to be rigid. He cannot in the short run change the kind of car he drives, nor the home he lives in or the distance between home and work. This means that the physical market reacts only very slowly to changes in the price of oil, and primarily through an income effect (a slow down of the economy) rather than through a price effect.
In order to regain some influence on oil prices, major oil producers must abandon their hostility to trading of their own crude oils. Ideally, they should themselves organise a broadly based and transparent physical market. The idea that a market for Gulf oils cannot exist because each quality has only a single producer is nonsense: a market can be created by resorting to auctions. Ideally, Saudi Arabia may consider setting up a system of weekly auctions to sell its Arabian Heavy crude oil, which is the effective "marginal crude oil" in today's conditions.
Auctions should be based on inviting bids without specifying ex ante the quantity that will be sold: this would be decided — together with the settlement price — in the light of the shape of the "demand curve" that bids would reveal. This method guarantees the seller against unwelcome surprises. Information acquired in the process would definitely clarify whether existing supply is sufficient, as claimed by Opec, or more oil needs to be pumped, as OECD political leaders advocate.
Auctions should be for standard lots of physical oil to be delivered not earlier than three months forward — in fact a longer delay may even be preferable. This would create an element of certainty in the market which would greatly improve the "reality check" for traders and investors in financial futures. Buyers should be free to trade their contracts in an open and transparent secondary market, which would facilitate price discovery on a continuous basis. A financial futures market in heavy crude would then naturally develop.
Creating a transparent and effective physical market for Arabian Heavy would also facilitate the discovery and trading of quality differentials, which in turn would help justifying investment in enhanced refinery conversion capacity. The physical market in Arabian Heavy would of course still be influenced by trading in Brent and WTI futures, but the link would be quite more elastic than it is today, and the influence might be in both directions. Put simply: curbing speculation is not the right objective, what is needed is a proper market for physical oil.
(Courtesy (Gulf Angle))
Prof. Giacomo Luciani is Director of the Gulf Research Center Foundation, Geneva

By: Zeeshan Haider
AFGHAN President Hamid Karzai’s threat of a cross-border pursuit of militants is more of a tactic to build pressure on Pakistan than a signal of real intent, analysts said Monday. Unnerved by Pakistan’s efforts to make peace with militants in its tribal areas, Karzai made the warning Sunday after the Taleban launched a bold and successful mass jailbreak in Kandahar in southern Afghanistan. The Pakistan Foreign Ministry summoned the Afghan ambassador to Islamabad to lodge a strong protest about Karzai’s statement Monday, spokesman Mohammad Sadiq said.
“When communication breaks down, opinions get fertilized,” said Afrasiab Khattack, a senior leader of Awami National Party, an influential ethnic Pashtun nationalist party. The Awami National Party is a secular party that competes with Islamist parties for influence over Pashtuns, the ethnic group most Taleban belong to.
“I think it’s high time for them to open communication to avoid any further escalation,” said Khattack, whose party is a junior partner in the 2 1/2-month-old coalition government in Islamabad and is in power in North West Frontier Province. Analysts said Karzai’s threat was a repeat of what some US and NATO officials had suggested in the past, and the Afghan army couldn’t act independently of US and NATO military command on such a matter.
“Now he has spoken their language,” said Rustam Shah Mohmand, a former ambassador of Pakistan to Kabul.
The former envoy suspected Karzai, who stands for re-election next year, was seeking to divert criticism, after getting back from an international donors conference in Paris last week.
While donors pledged $20 billion in aid to Afghanistan they said Karzai must fight corruption and improve governance.
For Karzai to lash out at Pakistan is nothing new, but his outburst coincided with growing impatience with Pakistan among Western allies.
The escape of more than 1,000 prisoners, including 400 Taleban, from Kandahar’s jail last Friday was another embarrassing demonstration of the enemy’s strength for Karzai. Every year, the blame game starts with the onset of summer when militants step up their attacks in Afghanistan after the winter snows melt in the mountains. The outgoing top US military commander in Afghanistan, General Dan K. McNeill, last week said attacks rose 50 percent in April in eastern Afghanistan due to insurgents crossing from Pakistan. The US military suffered more combat casualties in May in Afghanistan than in Iraq. Nearly 13,000 people, including hundreds of foreign troops, have been killed since 2006, when an insurgency that several US generals had said was on its last legs flared back into life.
Since February, the US military has been more aggressive in using air strikes across the border, particularly involving drone aircraft.
Last week, 11 Pakistani soldiers were killed in Mohmand tribal region in an air strike by US forces during an operation against militants on the border.
The casualties were the worst suffered by Pakistani security forces for US military action since their alliance was sealed. Analysts said they did not expect any letup in selective air strikes, nor did they foresee US ground forces being let off the leash in Pakistan. Rahimullah Yousafzai, an expert on Afghan and tribal affairs, said Karzai’s warning was linked to US efforts to encourage Pakistan to stop expecting to make peace with recalcitrant such as Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taleban. Mehsud was blamed for a wave of suicide bombings and attacks that killed well over 1,000 people in Pakistan since mid-2007.
In his comments Sunday, Karzai singled out Mehsud, who last month defiantly asserted attacks on Western forces in Afghanistan would go on regardless of any agreement to stop operations inside Pakistan.
Karzai said that Mehsud and his cohorts would be killed in their homes. Chances of Afghan troops doing that are negligible.
Mehsud’s stronghold in the mountains of South Waziristan is well away from the disputed border, and a large force of Afghan troops crossing Pakistani territory would almost certainly result in confrontation with Pakistani security forces. (Courtesy Reuters)