Category: Afghanistan

An open letter from Afghan refugees in Turkey to UNHCR

Dear UNHCR Authorities,

Afghans refugees are the third largest irregular refugee group in Turkey. Most have fled the war in Afghanistan. In 2010, refugees from Afghanistan numbered near 3,500 and made a sizable proportion of Turkey’s registered migrants. Most of them were spread out over satellite cities, with the following being the specific locations: Van, Ağrı, Kayseri, Gaziantep, Eskişehir, Çorum, Adana, Kahraman Maraş, Newşehir, Niğde, Sivas, Tokat, Istanbul, Ankara, Kutahya, Burdur, Konya, Karaman, Aksaray, Niğde and Hatay.

Over the years, the number of Afghans entering Turkey has greatly increased. As of January 2010, Afghans consisted one-sixth of the 26,000 remaining refugees and asylum seekers in Turkey. By the end 2011, with the increase of war and violence in Afghanistan, their numbers are expected to surge up to 10,000, making them the largest refugee group, surpassing all other groups.

Afghan refugees are victims of the Afghan government’s propaganda, which makes the UNHCR think that Afghanistan has become safe and its refugees need little assistance. This mindset from your organization toward Afghan refugees confirms what people say about the UNHCR – that it is an institution that doesn’t truly respect human rights. Because of this approach by the UNHCR, a large number of Afghan refugees have lost their lives as they have chosen to independently and illegalty smuggle themselves to EU member countries.

When it comes to Afghan refugees in Turkey, we believe that UNHCR chooses not to uphold the rights of these refugees, and refuses to comply with its own mandate. Refugee applications take far too long to process, and living conditions for refugees are untenable.

Day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year, we live with lies and broken promises of change, and when change comes, it is for the worse and not for the better. Nothing improves despite all the negotiations.

Like you, we were fed the love of my country. Like you, we remember our past and present, and remember the rusty keys of my parents’ home, keys to doors that exist no more, but keys that have their doors in our hearts and our imaginations. These rusty keys are still with us. We remember that we were brought up with this eternal belief that right is right, and nothing can justify ignoring it.

But for our children, the situation is very bad. They feel excluded and discriminated against. They are ashamed because they live in refugee housing and therefore they do not bring their friends from school to their apartments. The children have no room and space for themselves. They have little possibilities to learn from school. They ask their parents for help with their school lessons, but their parents don’t know the new language. The futures of our children are being destroyed in the collective refugee buildings. They become adults earlier than other children, because they live among other refugees, most of whom are adults, under harsh conditions. Through the control of the janitors and their presence, they feel in their young life like they are in prison.

It is hard to imagine that in this century, families spend their nights hungry, and children spend their nights playing in the dim light of a candle because their families can’t afford to pay for electricity. It is even worse to imagine that in the peak of the world modernization, some groups of people are locked in a small place and denied the freedom of movement. It is hard to imagine that a mother gives birth to two babies here, and the firstborn child is going to be five, having waited all her life for a change in her status file that is yet to come. It is hard to imagine that the Afghan refugees live here without the right to work, and only getting some money for paying for food and rent.

We believe in human values and human rights and generosity. We believe in freedom, justice, peace, democracy and equality. We believe that people who fight for justice and against oppression are heroes, like you. We believe that you are a role model, and you will affect generations to come.

But we are also the witness of UNHCR staff sometimes working to the detriment of Afghan refugees. During the last night of 2010, many fıles of Afghan refugees learned that they had been accepted, and they ware happy with UNHCR for this kind of pleasant surprise. Unfortunatly, after two days, our smiles vanished as we learned that our files had been changed to Private Accept (Özel kabul in Turkish). This incident shows the quality of work the UNHCR staff in Ankara performs for Afghan refugees.

We are the witness of a letter sent it the same document to an Afghan refugee twice after three months. This also shows the quality of work your staff in Ankara performs for Afghan reffugees.

We do not accept such inattention and violations of the rights of Afghan refugees, and we, jointly with Afghan refugees all over of Turkey, therefore make the following demands:

• Until our primary demand is implemented, we ask that UNHCR take immediate steps to ensure that the status determination procedures are efficient, fair, and transparent, and that UNHCR and its affiliated organizations are accountable to asylum-seekers

• UNHCR must explain why the cases of Afghan refugees in Turkey take significantly longer to process compared to those of other refugees

• UNHCR must explain why the case of many Afghan refugees, which have been accepted already by UNHCR, are suspended within 1 to 2 years

• UNHCR must explain why the cases of many Afghan refugees are in the Specific Acceptance status or in Turkish (Özel Kabul). We demand to know why the UNHCR refuses to explain this to us. And, finally, what is the difference between the Normal Acceptance and Specific Acceptance? How many years must those in the Specific Acceptance status wait for the change? We are demanding that the UNHCR change Specific Acceptance to Normal Acceptance.

• If you want to work for Afghan refugees, you must employ Afghan translators who are familiar with the Afghan language and culture. Because there is a big difference between Farsi – which the translators speak – and Dari – which the Afghan refugees speak – we don’t understand the translators well, and they in turn cannot understand us and fail to accurately convey what we mean. Translators must be proficient in Dari and must understand Afghan culture to ensure that refugees’ accounts are recorded correctly and in full.

• Interviews must be made comfortable; asylum-seekers should not feel criminalized by interviewers.

• Full and clear reasons for rejection must be disclosed in a detailed format, directly to the refugee, immediately after a decision has been made.

• We demand that all rejected case files immediately be reopened and reviewed under the standards for UNHCR’s operation demanded here.

• UNHCR must ensure that collaborating agencies and NGOs mandated to assist asylum seekers and refugees, for example ASAM, are free from corrupt practices and treat refugees fairly and in accordance with their rights.

The current situation of Afghan refugees in Turkey, which has been ongoing for years, is not now nor has it ever been acceptable. Our Coordination Group will continue to campaign until human rights violations cease and our refugees are protected by the UNHCR according to its mandate.

The UNHCR is well aware that many Afghan refugees who have been registered with the UNHCR choose to go to the EU illegally. They wait for a long period of time hoping a change in their status, but that does not happen. You are also well aware that many Afghan refugee families from several cities left Turkey to enter the EU illegally because UNHCR invented a new law by creating the “specific acceptance situation,” or in Turkish, Özel kabul.

We are asking you: “What have you done to process our status?” This is why we continue to work to make a positive change and work for a better tomorrow at a time when every day that comes is worse than the day before for us.

We, the Afghan refugees, have been patient for a very long time, waiting for a change in our files. We have been silent since the UNHCR office inaugurated in Turkey and relied solely on you and your staff, but unfortunately, in the last few years, nothing has changed for us, instigating us to start the protest.

We don’t know if you will read these words or not, but we do hope that such words that come from our heart will reach yours, and you can find the hope and strength our people still have in them. Right is right, and justice is justice. All people are equal, and no race or color is superior above the others.

We urge you all to do something to save our kids and their future, and treat us as human beings who have the right to have a decent life.

We expect the UNHCR to immediately take measures to address these demands. The process of granting prima facie status to Afghan refugees must be fast-tracked. Anything less is unacceptable and will be met with continued public protests and action, including legal action, against the UNHCR.

We fear the day when our refugees, despondent about their prospects here, decide to go to the EU en masse. Thus, it is a need that your office takes urgent measures to solve these problems. We think it is time that your office rightly addresses this issue before it is too late. Otherwise, we will ask the international community to help Afghan refugees to change the political line of the UNHCR.

We will ask workers of the UN, the UNHCR and other workers of different institutions in different countries to show their support to Afghan refugees.

We hope to see some positive changes about the problems and concerns we have raised here. Thank you in advance for considering this open letter in a positive way; otherwise, we will be compelled to send it all of human rights organizations and the UNHCR headquarters.

In conclusion, we thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. We are eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken.

Sincerely,

Coordination Group of Afghan Refugees in Turkey

Turkey

June 27, 2011
‘Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan can oust foreign powers’

OUR STAFF REPORTER

LAHORE – A high-level delegation of Iranian Province Khorasan Razvi, led by Governor Dr Mahmoud Salahi, visited the Punjab University and met Vice-Chancellor Prof Dr Mujahid Kamran and senior faculty members in the Al-Raazi Hall of Center for Undergraduate Studies on Tuesday. Iranian Counsel General Muhammad Hussain Bani Asadi also accompanied the delegation.

Speaking on the occasion, VC Dr Mujahid Kamran said Turkey, Pakistan and Iran were the ray of hope and they can, with the help of Afghan people, face the challenge of world powers. These countries should put their nations on a course of education. He said the defeat of America and abolishment of the hold of rich families was possible if these countries promote relations with Russia and China and help Afghan people. He said the Governor Khorasan was visiting the country in such a situation when the region was facing serious dangers and foreign powers wanted to occupy Eurasia. He said Americans possessed many qualities but a group of rich families had the hold of Americans and the government, who, through planning, had imposed wars and debit system. “The group of rich families, through various organisations, has been successful in controlling governments, media, defense and academic institutions, and distorted the history”, the VC added. He said 400 institutes and 3,000 think tanks, with the help of US $6 billion, carrying out research on how Americans’ opinion could be kept on a specific track. He said the world was facing two basic issues i.e first the American people have been brought stood before the world, second, 1.5 billion Muslims, even having over 70 per cent resources, were dreaming while they had such a Book (Holy Quran) and philosophy which can unite the world. He said the invitation of Punjab Chief Minister to Khorasan Governor would help promote economic and trade relations between Punjab and Khorasan provinces sand mutual relations of the varsities would also be developed. He said world was a battle-field and educated nations reserved the right of survival.

via ‘Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan can oust foreign powers’ | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online.

June 2, 2011
Wasn’t Bin Laden the reason we went to war?

Patrick Cockburn: Wasn’t Bin Laden the reason we went to war?

The killing of the al-Qa’ida leader offers an opportunity to make long overdue progress on Afghanistan

Does the death of Osama bin Laden open the door for the US and UK to escape from the trap into which they have fallen in Afghanistan? At first sight, the presumed weakening of al-Qa’ida ought to strength the case for an American and British withdrawal. When President Obama ordered the dispatch of an extra 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in 2009, he declared that the goal was “to deny safe-haven to al-Qa’ida and to deny the Taliban the ability to overthrow the Afghan government”.

This justification for stationing 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan and for Washington spending $113bn (£69bn) a year always looked thin. By the US army’s own estimate there are about 100 members of al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan compared with an estimated 25,000 Taliban. Even on the Pakistan side of the border, al-Qa’ida probably only has a few hundred fighters.

A problem for the US and Britain is how to dump this convenient but highly misleading explanation as to why it was essential for the safety of their own countries to fight a war in Afghanistan. This has required pretending that al-Qa’ida was in the country in significant force and that a vast US and UK military deployment was necessary to defend the streets of London or the little house on the prairie.

The death of Bin Laden reduces this highly exaggerated perception of al-Qa’ida as a threat. People, not unreasonably, ask what we are doing in Afghanistan, and why soldiers are still being killed. One spurious argument has been to conflate al-Qa’ida and the Afghan Taliban, and say they are much the same thing. But it is difficult to think of a single Afghan involved in bomb attacks against targets in the US and Britain before and after 9/11. Al-Qa’ida’s leadership was mainly Egyptian and Saudi as were all the 9/11 bombers.

The problem for Washington and London is that they have got so many people killed in Afghanistan and spent so much money that it is difficult for them to withdraw without something that can be dressed up as a victory. Could the death of Bin Laden be the sort of success that would allow Obama to claim that America’s main objective has been achieved? For the moment, at least, it will be more difficult for the Republicans to claim that a disengagement is a betrayal of US national security. Could not this be the moment for the US, with Britain tagging along behind, to cut a deal and get out?

Unfortunately, it probably isn’t going to happen. It will not be Obama’s decision alone. In 2009, he was dubious about what a temporary surge in US troop numbers would achieve and keen not to be sucked into a quagmire in Afghanistan just as the US was getting out of one in Iraq. Endless discussions took place in the offices of the White House about whether or not to send reinforcements.

But the outcome of these repeated meetings was predictable given the balance of power between different institutions in Washington. Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA and the next US Secretary for Defence, said that the decision to send more troops should have been made in a week, because the political reality is that “no Democratic president can go against military advice, especially if he has asked for it. So just do it. Do what they [the generals] said.”

The US military is not going to eat its optimistic words of late last year when they were claiming that it was finally making headway against the Taliban. Insurgent mid-level commanders were being assassinated in night raids by US Special Forces, and survivors were fleeing to Pakistan. If the Taliban were increasing their strength in northern Afghanistan, they were losing their grip on their old strongholds in Helmand and Kandahar.

Such reports of progress appear to have been largely propaganda or wishful thinking. At the start of this year’s fighting season the Taliban have been able to launch as many attacks as last year and replace its casualties. In Kandahar last month, they were able to free 500 prisoners from the city jail by digging a tunnel 1,000 feet long over five months without anybody finding out about it. An organisation that can do this is scarcely on its last legs. The message of the last few months is that the “surge” in Afghanistan, of which so much was expected, has not worked.

The Americans and British are meant to be training Afghan military and police units to take the place of foreign forces. It is never quite explained how Taliban fighters, without any formal military training, are able to battle the best-equipped armies in the world, while Afghan government troops require months of training before they can carry out the simplest military task.

One escaped Taliban prisoner in Kandahar has said that their plan was helped by the fact in the evening the prison guards always fell into a drug-induced stupor.

Official bromides about building up the strength of the Afghan government ignore an ominous trend: the governing class is detested by the rest of the population as a gang of thieves and racketeers. I was struck in a recent visit to Kabul by the venom with which well-educated professional people and businessmen, who are not doing badly, condemn Hamid Karzai’s government. This does not mean that they support the Taliban, but it does show that Karzai’s support, aside from cronies busily engaged in robbing the state, is very small.

When negotiations do start they should be between the four main players: the US, the Afghan government, the Taliban, and Pakistan. For all the rude things being said about the Pakistan military after Bin Laden was discovered so close to their main military academy in Abbottabad, nothing is going to be decided without their say-so.

Only the Pakistani army can deliver the Taliban whose great strategic advantage in the war is that under pressure they can always withdraw across the border into Pakistan. It is the highly permeable border, as long as the distance from London to Moscow, which prevented the Soviet Union from defeating Afghan rebels in the 1980s. Pakistan is not going to try to close this border and could not do so even if it wanted to.

It would not be difficult for the Taliban to renounce al-Qa’ida and other jihadi groups. The killing of Bin Laden as the icon of evil should make this easier for the US to accept.

Obviously there is going to be no military solution to the Afghan conflict, and negotiations with the Taliban will have to begin sooner or later, so why not now?

www.independent.co.uk, 8 May 2011

Showing 10 comments
Sort by Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS anna 21 minutes ago afghanistan has untold mineral wealth and the Unicla pipeline goes through it – that’s why they are thereGetit? the Taliban can’t get hold of that, right?

May 8, 2011
Bad news for Arab dictators: Bin Laden the scapegoat is dead

Here is the big news! Osama bin Laden is captured, dead and buried in the sea “according to the Islamic traditions.”

As a well-educated Muslim I never heard of such a tradition. For thousands of years Muslims are expected to be buried in 24 hours following their death, but after a special funeral prayer on land, not to the sea. One defense of the sea burial — the potential for a grave to become a symbolic attraction point for radicals — is also nonsense, since the Wahhabi school of Islam, of which bin Laden was a follower, strongly forbids grave markers and tomb visits. In Wahhabi terms, God is only the agency to pray for, and building tombs for regular prayer visits is interpreted as competing with the “oneness of God.” (more…)

May 6, 2011
David Cameron’s Statement on the death of Usama bin Laden, and counter terrorism

Prime Minister David Cameron’s statement to the House of Commons on the death of Usama bin Laden and counter-terrorism.

Read the statement

The death of Usama bin Laden will have important consequences for the security of our people at home and abroad and for our foreign policy, including our partnership with Pakistan, our military action in Afghanistan and the wider fight against terrorism across the world.

Last night I chaired a meeting of COBR to begin to address some of these issues.

The National Security Council has met this morning.

And I wanted to come to the House this afternoon, to take the first opportunity to address these consequences directly and answer Hon Members’ questions.

Mr Speaker, at 3am yesterday I received a call from President Obama. He informed me that US Special Forces had successfully mounted a targeted operation against a compound in Abbottabad, in Pakistan.

Usama bin Laden had been killed, along with four others: bin Laden’s son, two others linked to him, and a female member of his family entourage. There was a ferocious firefight, and a US helicopter had to be destroyed but there was no loss of American life.

I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating President Obama and praising the courage and skill of the American Special Forces who carried out this operation.

It is a strike at the heart of international terrorism, and a great achievement for America and for all who have joined in the long struggle to defeat Al Qaeda.

We should remember today in particular the brave British servicemen and women who have given their lives in the fight against terrorism across the world.

And we should pay tribute especially to those British forces who have played their part over the last decade in the hunt for bin Laden.

He was the man who was responsible for 9/11 – which was not only an horrific killing of Americans, but remains to this day, the largest loss of British life in any terrorist attack.

A man who inspired further atrocities including in Bali, Madrid, Istanbul and of course, here in London on 7/7.

…and, let us remember, a man who posed as a leader of Muslims but was actually a mass murderer of Muslims all over the world. Indeed he killed more Muslims than people of any other faith.

Mr Speaker, nothing will bring back the loved ones who have been lost and of course no punishment at our disposal can remotely fit the many appalling crimes for which he was responsible.

But I hope that at least for the victims’ families there is now a sense of justice being served, as a long dark chapter in their lives is finally closed.

As the head of a family group for United Airlines Flight 93, put it – we are “raised, obviously, never to hope for someone’s death” but we are “willing to make an exception in this case … He was evil personified, and our world is a better place without him.”

Mr Speaker, Britain was with America from the first day of the struggle to defeat Al Qaeda. Our resolve today is as strong as it was then. There can be no impunity and no safe-refuge for those who kill in the name of this poisonous ideology.

Security

Mr Speaker, our first focus must be our own security.

While bin Laden is gone, the threat of Al Qaeda remains.

Clearly there is a risk that Al Qaeda and its affiliates in places like Yemen and the Mahgreb will want to demonstrate they are able to operate effectively.

And, of course, there is always the risk of a radicalised individual acting alone, a so-called lone-wolf attack.

So we must be more vigilant than ever – and we must maintain that vigilance for some time to come.

The terrorist threat level in the UK is already at Severe – which is as high as it can go without intelligence of a specific threat.

We will keep that threat level under review – working closely with the intelligence agencies and the police.

In terms of people travelling overseas, we have updated our advice and encourage British nationals to monitor the media carefully for local reactions, remain vigilant, exercise caution in public places and avoid demonstrations.

And we have ordered our embassies across the world to review their security.

Pakistan

Mr Speaker, let me turn next to Pakistan.

The fact that bin Laden was living in a large house in a populated area suggests that he must have had a support network in Pakistan.

We don’t currently know the extent of that network, so it is right that we ask searching questions about it. And we will.

But let’s start with what we do know.

Pakistan has suffered more from terrorism than any other country in the world.

As President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani said to me when I spoke to them yesterday, as many as 30,000 innocent civilians have been killed. And more Pakistani soldiers and security forces have died fighting extremism than international forces killed in Afghanistan.

Usama Bin Laden was an enemy of Pakistan. He had declared war against the Pakistani people. And he had ordered attacks against them.

President Obama said in his statement: “counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding.”

Continued co-operation will be just as important in the days ahead.

I believe it is in Britain’s national interest to recognise that we share the same struggle against terrorism.

That’s why we will continue to work with our Pakistani counterparts on intelligence gathering, tracing plots and taking action to stop them.

It’s why we will continue to honour our aid promises – including our support for education as a critical way of helping the next generation of Pakistanis to turn their back on extremism and look forward to a brighter and more prosperous future.

But above all, it’s why we were one of the founder members of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan. Because it is by working with the democrats in Pakistan that we can make sure the whole country shares the same determination to fight terror.

Afghanistan

Mr Speaker, I also spoke yesterday to President Karzai in Afghanistan.

We both agreed that the death of bin Laden provides a new opportunity for Afghanistan and Pakistan to work together to achieve stability on both sides of the border.

Our strategy towards Afghanistan is straightforward and has not changed.

We want an Afghanistan capable of looking after its own security without the help of foreign forces.

We should take this opportunity to send a clear message to the Taleban: now is the time for them to separate themselves from Al Qaeda and participate in a peaceful political process.

Mr Speaker, the myth of Bin Laden was one of a freedom fighter, living in austerity and risking his life for the cause as he moved around in the hills and mountainous caverns of the tribal areas.

The reality of Bin Laden was very different: a man who encouraged others to make the ultimate sacrifice while he himself hid in the comfort of a large, expensive villa in Pakistan, experiencing none of the hardship he expected his supporters to endure.

Libya

Mr Speaker, finally let me briefly update the House on Libya.

In recent weeks we have stepped up our air campaign to protect the civilian population.

Every element of Qadhafi’s war machine has been degraded.

Over the last few days alone, NATO aircraft have struck 35 targets including tanks and armoured personnel carriers, as well as bunkers and ammunition storage facilities.

We have also made strikes against his command and control centres which direct his operations against civilians.

Over the weekend there were reports that in one of those strikes Colonel Qadhafi’s son, Saif al-Arab Qadhafi, was killed.

All the targets chosen were clearly within the boundaries set by UN Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

These Resolutions permit all necessary measures to protect civilian life – including attacks on command and control bases.

Mr Speaker, this weekend also saw attacks on the British and Italian embassies.

We utterly deplore this.

The Qadhafi regime is in clear beach of the Vienna convention to protect diplomatic missions. We hold them fully to account. And we have already expelled the Libyan Ambassador from London.

The British embassy was looted as well as destroyed.

The World War Two Memorial was desecrated.

And the UN have felt obliged to pull their people out for fear of attack.

Qadhafi made much of his call for a ceasefire.

But at the very moment Qadhafi claimed he wanted to talk, he had in fact been laying mines in Misurata harbour to stop humanitarian aid getting in and continuing his attacks on civilians, including attacks across the border in neighbouring Tunisia.

Mr Speaker, we must continue to enforce the UN resolutions fully until such a time as they are completely complied with.

And that means continuing the NATO mission until there is an end to all attacks on – and threats to – civilians.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, bin Laden and Qadhafi were said to have hated each other. But there was a common thread running between them.

They both feared the idea that democracy and civil rights could take hold in the Arab world.

While we should continue to degrade, dismantle and defeat the terrorist networks a big part of the long term answer is the success of democracy in the Middle East and the conclusion of the Arab-Israeli peace process.

For twenty years, bin Laden claimed that the future of the Muslim world would be his.

But what Libya has shown – as Egypt and Tunisia before it – is that people are rejecting everything that bin Laden stood for.

Instead of replacing dictatorship with his extremist totalitarianism, they are choosing democracy.

Ten years on from the terrible tragedy of 9/11, with the end of bin Laden and the democratic awakening across the Arab world, we must seize this unique opportunity to deliver a decisive break with the forces of Al Qaeda and its poisonous ideology which has caused so much suffering for so many years.

And I commend this statement to the House.

The Prime Ministers Office

Number 10

May 3, 2011
Talks continue over Taliban office in Istanbul

ANKARA – Hürriyet Daily News

Potential U.S. support to the idea of Turkey hosting a political office for Taliban militants from Afghanistan has given a boost to the initiative, first suggested late last year.

Former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani, who heads the Afghan High Peace Council, discussed the issue during a visit to Turkey last month, a member of the council told the Associated Press.

“Turkey didn’t say no,” Arsala Rahmani was quoted as saying. “It is a key issue for resolving the situation in Afghanistan. It’s important for the Taliban to have a political address – a place – to talk to the world face-to-face. We have said in the past that without an address, solving the problem will be difficult.”

No official application has yet been made for such an office, but Turkish approval could bolster Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s efforts to integrate moderate Taliban into mainstream society, a senior Turkish Foreign Ministry diplomat said Monday.

“This is an issue still under discussion. The Americans also say an office can be opened,” the diplomat told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review, speaking on condition of anonymity. “We are not acting on our own. This can happen only with the positive opinion of every party concerned.”

Rahmani, a member of the peace council set up by the Afghan government to work toward a political solution, told the Associated Press that Turkey is already making plans for the office but it will take time to work out the details.

The issue is expected to come up during the visit of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, who was scheduled to be in Ankara late Monday.

“Pakistan fully supports Afghan efforts for peace and stability in Afghanistan,” a Pakistani Embassy spokesman told the Daily News.

April 12, 2011