The recent and very public scandal within the United Nations, in which UN Special Representative Kai Eide has been accused of bias in favor of the Afghan president during the troubled elections, has cast a long shadow on the honesty and impartiality of the United Nations Assistance Mission (UNAMA) in Afghanistan.

Observers say that it may not be so easy for the UN to regain its former stature within Afghanistan.

“In the past, only the opposition used to question the United Nations Mission in Afghanistan,” said political analyst Wahid Mojhda. “But after the recent internal disputes between high-ranking officials of UNAMA, even supporters of the UN mission have raised serious questions about its credibility.”

The allegations against Eide were made by his former deputy, Peter Galbraith, who told the media that the special representative had covered up massive fraud that occurred in the August 20 presidential elections. Since the bulk of the falsification had been in Karzai’s favor, this amounted to an open bias on the part of Eide, asserted Galbraith.

Galbraith, who was sacked following disagreements with his boss over how to handle the mounting evidence of widespread fraud in the August 20 elections, has taken his case to the press. In a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, parts of which were leaked to the New York Times, he claimed that Eide "denied that significant fraud had taken place, even going to the extreme of ordering U.N. staff not to discuss the matter." He also accused Eide of ordering the staff not to share the United Nations’ voter data, which showed extremely low turnout in key southern provinces, because it would be "deeply disturbing to president Karzai."

Later, in a comment piece for the Washington Post, Galbraith asserted that as many as 30 percent of Karzai’s votes were fraudulent. He claimed that in several provinces, including Kandahar, four to 10 times more votes were recorded than voters actually cast, most of which were in support of Karzai.

Galbraith also said that his former boss had openly stated his support for Karzai.  

Eide, who is from Norway, held a press conference on October 11, at which he sought to deflect the charges made by his former deputy. Flanked by ambassadors from the US, UK, Germany and France, he  insisted that he had pursued all claims of fraud that he was able to substantiate, and that reports from polling stations often could not be verified because they were, as he described them, “second hand reports provided by telephone conversations”.

He did acknowledge that in a number of polling stations in the south and the southeast, there was significant fraud, but he maintained that the extent of that fraud was unclear.  

"It has been claimed that there was 30 percent fraud. There is no way to know at this stage what the level of fraud is. No one knows. I can only say there was widespread fraud," said Eide.

UN press officials have tried to depict Eide’s conflict with Galbraith as a “personality clash”; however, Galbraith has repeatedly insisted that the conflict was based on professional considerations, specifically, what he called “ghost polling stations” in the south, and Eide’s biased stance in favor of Karzai.

With the elections now almost two months past, the final results have still not been announced. The Independent Election Commission (IEC) and the Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) are still sifting through ballot boxes, trying to substantiate allegations of fraud. The IEC is expected to make it announcement within days.

Preliminary results issued last month show President Hamid Karzai winning with 54.6 percent of the vote, but if enough votes are nullified  by fraud investigators, he could  fall below the 50 percent threshold needed to avoid a runoff with his top challenger, Abdullah Abdullah.

For the UN, the results of the elections are likely to be long and, if analysts are to be believed, extremely negative. It will take the organization some time to recover from the current crisis, they say.

According to Mojhda’s, Eide has forged a close relationship with certain elements in the presidential administration, which has given rise to speculation about his impartiality.

Mojhda believes that what he calls “extreme ethnocentric Pashtuns” within the administration have always had close relations with Eide, as they facilitated his selection as special representative. They advised Karzai not to accept Paddy Ashdown – the previous nominee for the post. Mojhda said that these elements preferred Eide.

Jafar Rasoli, Karzai’s former advisor on international affairs and a current member of his campaign team, blames Galbraith for what he calls his “intractable measures.” However; he accepts that Galbraith’s accusations have raised serious questions about the credibility of United Nations Mission.

“The unilateral measures taken by Peter Galbraith and his irresponsible act of airing an internal dispute in the media, is the main reason for the current problem.” Rasoli said, “Galbraith did this in order to put psychological and political pressure on his former boss, but naturally, it has undermined the credibility of the whole mission.”

According to Rasoli, whether or not Galbraith’s accusations turn out to be true, they have damaged the prestige of UNAMA. “Galbraith was a senior official; his claims will be taken seriously by everyone,” he said.

UNAMA was established in March, 2002 by UN Security Council Resolution 1401 following the Bonn Agreement of December, 2001.

It is tasked with providing political and strategic advice for the peace process, promoting international engagement in the country, assisting the Government and contributing to the protection and promotion of human rights.

The mandate of UNAMA provides for the organization to build close relationships with civil society, political parties, and the media, in addition to the government, in order to be able to support the peace process. Nevertheless in the past seven years, UNAMA has largely restricted its interactions to the government.

“Contrary to its mandate, UNAMA has not given strategic advice to support the peace process,” said Mojhda.  “Instead, it has always taken politically expedient measures.”

According to Mojhda, UNAMA has not been able to follow its mandate properly and effectively. He blames the Americans, however, for what he calls “their interference in determining UNAMA’s way of acting.” The real decision-makers of Afghanistan are the Americans, he insisted.

But Mohammad Akbar Orya, a former advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, believes that UNAMA’s decisions have always been taken in the interest of what he calls the “puppet elements” that came to power after the Bonn Agreement.

Based on Orya’s view, UNAMA’s performance has not benefited the people, because it was not established in support of the people. “UNAMA was established to support only the system that is based on the “Bonn Tragedy,” he said. “This is why they have not paid attention to the people’s will for the past seven years,” he said.

UN officials in both New York and Kabul have always described their mission as impartial, transparent and true to its principles; the loss of credibility caused by the recent clashes between senior officials of UN is not a matter that can be handled easily.

According to Mojhda, the credibility of the UN mission as well as the legitimacy of the state created on the basis of this election is a matter for discussion and doubt.

“Whatever the real issue was, and whatever the facts were, the recent disputes between the top officials of the United Nations raise serious doubts about the impartiality and honesty of UNAMA and the United Nations as a whole,” said Mojhda, “Particularly in Afghanistan people will no longer have as much confidence in UN missions as they had before.”