Hamid Karzai, the incumbent president of Afghanistan, is a man in trouble.
He was once the darling of the West, hand-picked for office by the United States. But now he has become the focus of unprecedented political pressure, as the international community seeks a path out of Afghanistan’s electoral crisis.
“The era of close friendship between Karzai and the West is over,” said political analyst Engineer Mohammad Habib. “It will not be easy to rebuild confidence. Even if Karzai wins the runoff election, he will not be considered an effective partner for the West.”
On October 20 Karzai bowed to threats and entreaties from a series of Western leaders, agreeing to a second round of voting to settle questions surrounding the August presidential elections. His acquiescence created a short period of relative calm in the country, but even that seems fragile and temporary.
But the effects of the election scandal are likely to outlast the vote; the massive fraud found to have been committed in the first round, as well as Karzai’s refusal to acknowledge it, have raised serious doubts about the future of the Afghan president’s relations with the West.
It could not come at a worse time for Karzai. The United States is in the midst of a difficult examination of its strategy for Afghanistan. The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has requested additional troops to cope with a growing insurgency and a failing war.
The Americans know that without a credible Afghan partner, they have little chance of success.
“Westerners, especially Americans, have lost their confidence in Karzai,” said Engineer Habib. “Karzai’s administration was already considered one of the weakest and most corrupt in the world, and the level of fraud committed by Karzai’s team in the August 20 elections doubled that lack of confidence. If Karzai is re-elected, he will face even more intense pressure from the West.”
Karzai has resisted the findings of the U.N.-backed Electoral Complaints Commission, which found that his 55 percent tally in the first round was due to fraud. After an audit of suspicious polling stations, the ECC ordered the election commission to nullify over 1.3 million votes, close to 1 million of them for Karzai.
This brought the president’s totals below the 50-percent-plus-one threshold needed for a first-round win, and forced a runoff between Karzai and Abdullah.
It was widely expected that Karzai would reject the findings outright, and refuse to hold a second round of voting. But at the last minute he relented.
At his October 20 press conference, Karzai said he would accept the results of the Independent Election Commission (IEC). But he stopped short of acknowledging that the first round had been plagued by widespread fraud. According to the president, the election had been “defamed,” and the votes of close to one millions Afghans had been “disrespected.”
He told the press conference that he had agreed to the runoff because of his “preference for Afghanistan’s interests over own personal interest.”
But Karzai is now in a very delicate position. Long seen as a puppet of the West, especially the United States, he has tried very hard to acquire an aura of independence over the past few years. Under the new administration in Washington, his attempts to shake off America’s embrace have come very close to xenophobia.
“Karzai’s campaign camp, and his supporters were vigorously lobbying against what they called ‘foreign interference in Afghanistan’s Elections,’” said political analyst Massoud Ansari. “They claimed that the ECC’s decision was politically manipulated under foreign pressure. But finally they realized that taking the tiger by the tail could be very costly for them.”
According to Ansari, Karzai had no constitutional or any other justifiable reason to reject the ECC’s findings. Any attempt to defy the ECC would be brinksmanship against the will of Afghans and of the international community, he added.
Many influential Western officials telephoned Karzai in the days preceding his announcement, including UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ansari says that these calls were not mild requests, but serious warnings not to cross the line.
As the political crisis developed, the White house stepped up its pressure, threatening to cut assistance if a “credible partner” could not be found in Afghanistan.
For a state that is directly dependent on Western economic and military assistance, such an outcome would be catastrophic.
Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, made clear that President Barack Obama would hold off on General McChyrstal’s request for additional troops until the political deadlock in Kabul was resolved. Emanuel suggested that Obama would not want to dispatch more Americans to fight and die for a government widely seen as illegitimate by the Afghan people.
“It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if, in fact, you haven’t done a thorough analysis of whether there’s an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create,” Emanuel told CNN. “Do you have a credible Afghan partner for this process that can provide the security and the type of services that the Afghan people need?”
But appearance of Senator John Kerry (D.-Mass.) in the presidential palace and his sometimes harsh discussions with Karzai appear to have been the most influential measures taken in the wake of the disputed elections.
Exactly what Kerry told Karzai last week is unknown, but it seems likely that he communicated Emanuel’s – and Obama’s – sentiments. Western diplomats in Kabul say that the senator made it clear to Karzai that if he refused to accept the election results, domestic support for his government in the United States and Europe would collapse, according to the New York Times.
Dr. Mahiuddin Mahdi, a political analyst in Kabul, said that Karzai was finally overcome by the pressure and said “yes” to the will of the international community.
Foreign pressure on Karzai has obviously been costly for him, but at home, it does have its advantages.
Over the past few years, Karzai has gained popularity among anti-American elements of the population. Many ordinary Afghans applaud his harsh statements about civilian casualties, and welcome his vow not to let foreigners dictate what Afghanistan will do.
“I like Karzai because he does not want foreigners interfering in Afghanistan,” said Hossain Rashedi, a 49-year-old resident of Kabul. “Karzai won the election on August 20, but foreigners manipulated the results.”
Sulieman, 42, agrees. He said he voted for Karzai because he thought Karzai was a “man of Afghanistan”.
Karzai has often been able to turn his conflicts with West, especially with the United States to his advantage, portraying himself as the only political figure willing to stand up to the dictates of the foreign community.
This latest interaction with the United States, in which Karzai was seen very clearly to buckle, may put a dent in his façade of independence.
