An interview with Mahmood Saiqal, former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding President Hamid Karzai’s trip to the United States of AmericaQ: Mr. Saiqal, how effective was President Hamid Karzai’s trip to the United States in healing the relations between the two countries, following a period of mutual tension?
A: The United States has military presence in Afghanistan and its aim is to fight terrorism. Afghanistan is its close partner in this mission, so such visits are necessary. The U.S. will try to avoid any deterioration in relations in order to safeguard its interests.
However, President Karzai’s trip was scheduled after President Barack Obama unexpectedly visited Afghanistan in March and invited Karzai to visit the United States at his convenience. However, following Obama’s visit, Karzai made some negative remarks against the West, particularly against the U.S.
I think President Obama is trying to downplay the problems between the United States and Afghanistan, since he has to answer to his constituents about the war on terror in Afghanistan.
On the other hand, U.S. and NATO forces will start leaving Afghanistan next year. So this visit, as well as meetings and discussions between U.S. officials and Karzai and his Cabinet was an assessment of the capacity of the Afghan Forces who will assume responsibility for security after the withdrawal of the foreign forces.
Q: Mr. Saiqal, President Karzai adopted a harsh stance towards the United States following trips to other countries in the region who have an adversarial relationship with the U.S. In your view, how much has Karzai been able to keep a balance between regional policies and his friendship with the United States?
A: President Karzai is trapped in a quagmire; he himself has created a big vacuum between the people and the government. People’s distrust of Karzai’s government, which was heightened after the last elections, is very strong. Half of his Cabinet members have not been confirmed, which shows that Karzai is facing serious domestic problems.
Weakness in Kabul will definitely be followed by international distrust in the Afghan government. The world will not support a government that is no longer supported by its people.
Widespread fraud in last presidential election affected the international community’s relations with the president; it affected its trust in Karzai. The world no longer believes what Karzai says.
President Karzai has realized this, and now he tries to seek regional and international reasons for his domestic problems.
He blamed international community for his own faults and he wants to win domestic support through such tactics. In his visit to the U.S., he wanted to show Afghan people that he is still a trusted figure for the U.S. and is supported by the West.
He wanted to force the West, particularly the U.S., to realize that they have no alternative but to cooperate with his government if they want to continue the war on terror. He has done this by provoking public opinion against foreigners, and blaming them for their interference in Afghanistan’s affairs.
Q: In a press conference held in Washington DC, President Karzai did not mention civilian causalities caused by foreign forces in Afghanistan. But he has raised this issue repeatedly in Kabul. Why was he silent in the United States?
A: Prior to this trip, President Karzai was engaged in a war of words against the United States. This caused a strong reaction among U.S. officials, and was followed by negative reactions within Afghanistan. Karzai has now realized that such remarks – criticizing the foreign forces for civilian casualties and blaming them for interfering in Afghanistan’s affairs – cannot cover his own government’s weaknesses. It also creates distance between his government and the United States. So he tries to say things in favor of the U.S. government and the American people.
Western analysts say that Karzai was unable to completely eliminate this conflict; I agree with this.
Q: Do you think the United States will now be able to look upon President Karzai as a reliable partner?
A: I do not think so. It is a problem of Americans that they look to Afghanistan as individuals, not as a country with a system. Political deals always take place with individuals. For instance, during this trip the focus was on Karzai rather than on the government of Afghanistan. I think such policies do not further U.S. interests in the region, nor are they beneficial for Afghanistan and its future.
We see that Karzai and his team tend towards individualism and tribalism. Unfortunately, the world, especially the U.S., thinks that it is difficult to establish a system in Afghanistan so they should focus on individuals. But In my opinion, such thoughts bear negative effects; therefore, the focus should be on establishing a system in Afghanistan.
Q: The Afghan government is scheduled to conduct a National Consultative Peace Jirga in Kabul to establish a mechanism for negotiation with government’s armed opposition to promote peace in Afghanistan. But U.S. and Afghan political parties have raised doubts over the goals of the Jirga. Did President Karzai win the required support of the U.S. for this Jirga during his trip?
A: In last year’s presidential election Karzai could not obtain national legitimacy. Now, by conducting the so-called National Consultative Peace Jirga, he is trying to acquire that legitimacy, as well as implying that reconciliation with the Taliban is the will of Afghan nation. But the representatives of the Jirga are all selected by the state authorities, and are not elected on the basis of a democratic system. I think US did not support the Jirga as Karzai wanted. They are very sensitive about the fight against terror and until they are convinced that the results of the Jirga will be in their favor, they will not let Karzai do what he wants to do.
Q: Karzai’s trip to London and his meeting with the new British Prime Minister was not in his original plan. Do you think that because Karzai did not have success in the United States regarding reconciliation with Taliban, he went to the United Kingdom? Considering the fact that the UK is the main supporter of negotiations with Taliban?
A: The Labor Party was in power for 15 years in the United Kingdom and now Conservatives have taken the lead and talk about bringing important changes. Liberal Democrats, who are now in a coalition with the dominant Conservatives, call the Taliban a movement which emerged from ordinary people, and according to them, the Taliban should be involved in power. So President Karzai’s trip to the UK was to cement his relations with Mr. Cameroon, the new Prime Minister, and to win his support on Afghanistan’s political issues, particularly negotiation with the Taliban.
