German companies relinquish their share of Baghlan sugar factory

Wednesday, 26 December 2012

Berlin, Dec 26 : Two German companies gave their 38-percent joint share of the New Baghlan Sugar Factory to the government of Afghanistan, making it the sole owner of the factory, Ministry of Agriculture said.

The factory needs subsidies of $500,000 annually, but it is expected to turn a profit within the next 5 years, the ministry added.

A major obstacle to the factory's productivity has been a shortage of beetroot, largely due to a pest infestation of the crop in Baghlan over the last few years. As the only shareholder of the factory, the Afghan government will endeavor to resolve the shortage and make the company self-sustained.

"We try to remove the challenges the company faces so that the opportunity for its self-sufficiency is provided. There is no doubt that carrying all the responsibilities of this factory will benefit Afghanistan," said Minister of Agriculture Mohammed Asef Rahimi.

Reconstruction of the Baghlan Sugar Factory started six years ago by the private sectors of Germany and Afghanistan. It had seven initial shareholders, including the Ministry of Agriculture. Three years ago, the four Afghan shareholders gave up their shares, followed by the Germans this year.

Abdulkarim Waziri, the former head of the New Baghlan Sugar Company, says that the company's assets are valued at an estimated $15 million.

"This factory is ready to work. The only problem is shortage of beetroot. If beetroot is provided, it will be capable of good productivity. The factory's infrastructure and systems are ready," said Waziri.

Ends
SA/EN

Continue Reading | comments

David Cameron to announce major reduction in Afghanistan troop numbers

London, Dec 26 : David Cameron is expected to reveal that at least 4,500 troops - more than half of the British force - will be withdrawn from the country by the end of next summer’s “fighting season”.

Around 500 troops will leave by the end of this year as Britain and its Nato partners begin discussing the number and type of troops that should remain in Afghanistan when foreign soldiers depart at the end of 2014.

But the Prime Minister will avoid offering a precise timetable for withdrawal, amid tensions between politicians and defence chiefs over how rapid the scaling down should be.

Commanders have long maintained that Nato’s advances - the term success is no longer used - against the Taliban remain “fragile and reversible” and serious doubts remain over the capability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).

Senior commanders believe that drawing down troop numbers too quickly could endanger the lives of those British forces remaining in Helmand and, in the worst case scenario, derail the entire exit strategy.

The decision on the details of the announcement is expected to be made at the meeting of the National Security Council (NSC), made up of senior ministers, civil servants and military leaders, which is set to discuss troop reductions in Afghanistan.

The Prime Minister and the rest of the NSC will be briefed by General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the General Staff, who is known to favour a cautious approach to cutting troop levels.

The timetable is also dependent on the whether the United States plan to confirm their troop reduction strategy before Christmas.

Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, arrived in Kabul last week to discuss US troop withdrawals with the Afghan government. Mr Panetta also held discussions on the US’s desire to leave up to 10,000 soldiers in the country after the 2014 deadline.

A Whitehall source said last night: “The size of the British force will reduced down to some where between 4,000 and 6,000 by next October.

“Britain will not announce troop reductions before the US does and we have the other Nato members to consider as well. But there is an expectation that the Prime Minister could make the announcement this week.”

The Prime Minister is expected to say that the transition of security control from British and Nato to Afghan forces is on schedule and making good progress.

He will also say that violence in Afghanistan is falling and the vast majority of the country’s population has no interest in seeing a return of the Taliban.

It is understood that over 50 British outposts and checkpoint have been closed or handed over to the Afghan security forces as commanders begin scaling down their “operational footprint”.

But senior commanders remain concerned that the ANSF still do not possess all the military capabilities to either contain or defeat the Taliban.

The Afghan army is still heavily dependent on Britain and other Nato countries for capabilities such as clearing roadside bombs and casualty evacuation as well as intelligence, air and logistics support.

Confidence in the Afghan army has also been eroded following the surge in the number of so-called insider attacks.

However, although many senior officers remain cautious their views have softened in recent months with some even suggesting that speeding up the withdrawal process is the better option.

The Prime Minister is determined to keep defence chiefs on side in any troop reduction process but he is under pressure from members of his own cabinet, especially George Osborne, the Chancellor, who wants to see the £2.5bn annual cost of the war slashed.

Politicians are also concerned at a lack of public support for the war, in which 438 troops have been killed and thousands more injured, which polls show is very low if non-existent, with the majority believing that troops should be brought home immediately.

Earlier this year Philip Hammond the Defence Secretary gave an insight into the Government’s thinking when he admitted that the pace of withdrawal could be increased.

During a visit to Camp Bastion in Helmand, he said: “I think there is a bit of a rethinking going on about how many troops we do actually need.

"There may be some scope for a little bit more flexibility on the way we draw down, and that is something commanders on the ground are looking at very actively.”

Ends
SA/EN

Continue Reading | comments

'Helmand was safer under the Taliban'

Marjah, Dec 26 : Nearly three years after US-led forces launched the biggest operation of the war to clear insurgents, foster economic growth and set a model for the rest of Afghanistan, angry residents of Helmand province say they are too afraid to go out after dark because of marauding bands of thieves.

And, during the day, they say corrupt police and government officials bully them into paying bribes.

After 11 years of war, many here long for a return of the Taliban. They say that under the Taliban, who routinely punished thieves by cutting off a hand, they were at least safe from crime and corruption.

"If you had a box of cash on your head, you could go to the farthest part of Marjah and no one would take it from you, even at night," said Maulvi Daoud, who runs a cubbyhole-sized shop in the town.

"Today you bring your motorcycle in front of your shop and it will be gone. Now the situation is that you go on the road and they are standing in police and army uniforms with weapons and they can take your money."

In Marjah in early 2010, about 15,000 Nato and Afghan forces waged the biggest battle of the war. They not only fought the Taliban with weapons, they promised to bring good governance to Marjah and the rest of the southern province of Helmand - and demonstrate to the residents the advantages of shunning the militants.

But it appears the flaw in the plan was with the quality of Afghans chosen by the president, Hamid Karzai, to govern and police the area after most of the fighting ended. And that adds to growing doubts about the entire country's future after foreign troops withdraw by the end of 2014.

Many claim the US-funded local police, a type of locally sanctioned militia, routinely demand bribes and threaten to accuse those who do not comply of being members of the Taliban. Good governance never came to Marjah, they say.

In villages of sun-baked mud homes, at crowded bus stops and in local tea houses where residents sit cross-legged at plastic-covered tables drinking tea and eating off communal plates, people scoffed at claims of security and development. They heaped criticism on the Afghan government and officials- accusing them of stealing billions of dollars in aid money meant for the people - and on an international community that they said ignored their needs and pandered to a corrupt administration.

Mr Daoud, the Marjah shop owner, said there had been more security under the Taliban, who were ousted by the US-led invasion in late 2001.

"They were never cruel to us and the one difference was security. It was better during the Taliban," he said.

His partner in the rickety shop along Marjah's chaotic one-street bazaar, Mohammed Haider, said poppy farmers who planted substitute crops such as cotton are losing money because they cannot sell their harvests. He predicted poppy production would double when foreign soldiers leave in 2014.

Analysts who know Helmand say a corrupt government poses one of the biggest hurdles to stability, alienating the locals and driving them into the hands of the Taliban.

The province is strategically important because of its large-scale poppy production that is financing the insurgency and fuelling criminal activity. While some success has been achieved at getting farmers to plant substitute crops, Helmand is still one of Afghanistan's largest opium-producing provinces.

The Nato-led coalition, known as the International Security Assistance Force, claims there are tangible gains against the Taliban in Helmand and neighbouring Kandahar province.

"While insurgent activity remains problematic in several districts, primarily in northern Helmand and western Kandahar, data from the battle space shows a marked decrease in overall enemy activity," an ISAF spokesman, Jamie Graybeal, said recently.

Despite a drop of 8 per cent in militant attacks from January to October compared with the same period last year, Helmand and neighbouring Nimroz province accounted for 32 per cent of all such attacks reported across the country from October 2011 to October this year, according to the ISAF.

Ryan Evans, a research fellow at the US-based Centre for National Policy, called Helmand the "most dangerous and violent" of Afghanistan's 34 provinces.

Some Afghans believe their countrymen are responsible for the current state of affairs.

Haji Khalil, who moved his family from Marjah to Lashkar Gah during the 2010 offensive, blamed Afghans for the rise in thefts and lawlessness since the defeat of the Taliban.

"During the Taliban no one would steal because we knew the punishment, but when they left everyone began to steal," Khalil said. "We became worse after the Taliban," he said. "The problem is with us."

Ends
SA/EN

Continue Reading | comments

Fewest states in 20 years executed inmates in 2012: report

Austin, Dec 26 : Nine states executed inmates in 2012, the fewest number in 20 years, as several Southern states that usually carry out executions did not put any inmates to death, according to a report released by a nonprofit that tracks death penalty data.

"There are still 33 states with the death penalty, but very few are actually regularly carrying out executions," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center and author of the report.

Forty-three inmates were executed this year, the same number as 2011, according to the report by the Washington, D.C.-based organization. Last year, 13 states executed inmates. No more executions are scheduled for this year.

Four states - Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma and Mississippi - accounted for more than three-quarters of the executions. Texas executed 15 people, and Arizona, Oklahoma and Mississippi each executed six. Ohio and Florida each executed three inmates. South Dakota executed two, and Delaware and Idaho each executed one. All of the executions were by lethal injection.

Several states that allow the death penalty and have traditionally had high numbers of executions did not carry out any in 2012. Among those was Virginia, which is second to Texas in the number of executions since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Missouri also had no executions in 2012.

"Even in the traditional death penalty areas, the death penalty is not being used as much," Dieter said.

"It's not seen as a normal or regular punishment for a crime," he added. "It's very expensive, it takes a long time to get to a death sentence, many are overturned and executions take place 20 years after the sentence. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to invest in something so speculative and far off."

But in Texas, Governor Rick Perry's office has said the governor "supports the death penalty as a fitting and constitutional punishment for the most heinous crimes."

Connecticut this year repealed the death penalty, bringing to 17 the number of states without the punishment. Illinois repealed its death penalty last year, while New York, New Jersey and New Mexico also did so recently.

This year in California, which has not carried out an execution in nearly seven years, voters declined to repeal the death penalty.

Next, Dieter said he expects to see efforts to repeal the death penalty in Maryland, Colorado and New Hampshire.

The number of new death sentences in 2012 was projected to be 78, the second-lowest since 1976. The lowest year since the reinstatement was 2011, with 76 sentences.

Ends
SA/EN

Continue Reading | comments