Is Karzai trying to Steal the Afghanistan Election, taking a Leaf from Ahmadinejad's Book?
The BBC is reporting that Obama's special envoy to AfPak, Richard Holbrooke, has had a shouting match with President Hamid Karzai over the desirability of a second round in the presidential election. At the moment, with 17% of ballots counted, Karzai is ahead of his nearest rival, Abdullah Abdullah, by 45% to 35%. That tally would not allow the incumbent to avoid a run-off (he needs 50% for that outcome).
So I ask myself, why is Holbrooke in Karzai's office insisting that there be a run-off? Wouldn't whether there is a second round depend on the outcome of the election? Why try to persuade Karzai?
The only way this scenario makes sense to me is if US/NATO intelligence is reporting from the field that Karzai is rigging the election returns so as to ensure he gets to 50%.
The presidential election, which had been intended by Obama and his NATO allies as a political victory over the Taliban, is swiftly turning into a major debacle.
Voter turnout fell from some 70 percent in the last presidential election, likely to only 30-something percent this time (not the 50% initially estimated, presumably by someone with an interest in hyping the event for propaganda purposes). In some southern provinces such as Helmand, turnout was only 10 percent, a datum that demonstrates that the people of Helmand simply had no voice in this election and it does not meet international standards of legitimacy. (Voters must be held harmless from threats and violence).
Another presidential candidate, Sarwar Ahmadzai, has called for a do-over of the election in 12 provinces where there were "irregularities":
' Sarwar Ahmadzai told a press conference in Kabul most of the rigging took place in Kandahar, Helmand, Uruzgan, Zabul, Nangarhar, Laghman, Kunar, Nuristan, Logar, Paktia, Paktika and Khost provinces. He accused supporters of Hamid Karzai and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah of involvement in irregularities. He said the rigging ranged from ballot box stuffing to voting by minors.'
Abdullah Abdullah has also alleged ballot fraud.
If Karzai is so widely suspected of stealing this election, why is there not the same global reaction against him as there was against Ahmadinejad in Iran? Is there an unwritten rule that allies of the West get cut some slack?
Moreover, it is clear that one of Karzai's less savory campaign techniques was to enlist the old sanguinary warlords on his side. The US has lodged a complaint with Karzai about his choice of Northern Alliance general Mohammad Fahim as his vice president. The Afghan Pajhwok News Service remarked dryly, "Asked why the Obama administration did not want Fahim to be in the government, the official replied it could be for a number of reasons narcotics, drug trade and human rights violations."
Many officials from NATO countries with troops in Afghanistan are fed up with Karzai, who, they say, says all the right things and makes promises but never delivers on them.
Pepe Escobar is scathing on the failure of the elections as a justification for NATO's Afghan mission.
Aljazeera English has video on the Karzai government's attempt to address the poor security situation in Qandahar (where on Tuesday the Taliban deployed an enormous truck bomb to kill dozens.
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 8/29/2009 01:09:00 AM
|
Facebook
13 Comments:
Dear Professor Cole
Shouldn't you have qualified your remark about the Iranian elections with a "or the Florida Ballot of 2000".
That gave all this American hot air about democracy a bad name, made worse by the actions of the pillock that the Supreme Court declared to be the winner.
Sounds like an Afghan version of Florida 2000
Eric Margolis, How To Bring Peace To Afghanistan : “The solution to this unnecessary war is not more phony elections but a comprehensive peace agreement between ethnic factions that largely restores status quo before the 1979 Soviet invasion. That means a weak central government in Kabul (Karzai is ideal for this job), and a high degree of autonomy for self-governing Pashtun, Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara regions. Government should revert to the old "loya jirga" system of tribal sit-downs, where decision are made by consensus, often after lengthy haggling. That is the way of the Afghans and of traditional Islamic society. Afghanistan worked pretty well under this old easygoing system. In fact, Afghanistan has never really had a "government" in the Western sense. All foreign soldiers must withdraw. A diplomatic "cordon sanitaire" should be drawn around Afghanistan’s borders, returning it to its traditional role as a neutral, "buffer state". The powers now stirring the Afghan pot – the US, NATO, India, Iran, Russia, and the Communist Central Asian states – must cease meddling. They have become part of the Afghan problem. Afghans must be allowed to slowly resolve their differences the traditional Afghan way even if it initially means blood and revenge attacks. That’s unavoidable in a land where the code of revenge – "badal" – is sacred. All Afghans must share future pipeline royalties. The only way to end the epidemic of drug trading is to shut border crossings to Pakistan and the Central Asian states. But those nation’s high officials, corrupted by drug money, will resist.”
“The US and NATO can't solve Afghanistan’s social or political problems by continuing to wage a cruel and apparently endless war [ ref: General McChrystal Seeks 20,000 More Troops : "Sixty-eight thousand US combat troops, 40,000 NATO soldiers, and 75,000 mercenaries are apparently not enough"]. American and NATO soldiers will never be able to change Afghanistan’s social behavior or end tribal customs that go back thousands of years: They are too busy defending their own bases from angry Afghans.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/world/asia/29prexy.html
August 29, 2009
Karzai Using Rift With U.S. to Gain Favor With Afghans
By HELENE COOPER
As American concerns mount about reports of widespread electoral fraud, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan is portraying himself as the one candidate willing to stand up to the United States.
[President Obama is determined to war forever in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but in trying to do so will be destroying the Obama Presidency.
Holbrooke always wished war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and is a typical dictatorial foreign policy thug.]
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/08/rules-of-colonizers.html
August 23, 2009
Rules of the colonizers
The colonizers never lose. They occupy a country, and then set up bogus elections to legitimize (in their own eyes) the selection of their own collaborationist puppets. And when the people participate in the voting, they say that this proves that the colonial project has been a success. And when people don't vote (less than 10% in some provinces in Afghanistan), they say that they were intimidated by the terrorists. And if they were to have voted in large numbers, they would have said: they were able to ignore the intimidation of terrorists. "And despite the Americans’ presence, Afghan officials said 290 people voted here last week at what is the only polling place in a region the size of Connecticut." *
* http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/world/asia/23marines.html
-- As'ad AbuKhalil
Why is the West so complacent? What choice do we have after eight years of indifference and incompetence?
Karzai was barely elected the first time before the reins of power devolved to the warlords including Dostum and Gul Agha and others. They actually shared power with Karzai which explains why the president remained "mayor of Kabul."
I suspect this election, no matter the outcome, will leave Afghanistan hopelessly fractured with large elements of the losing side joining the insurgency, possibly transforming it into a full-blown civil war (back to 2001).
What we probably fear most is such dissatisfaction with the central government that it leads to a general uprising, leaving us defending a nub government in Kabul with the tribes united against us as in the Soviet days.
What had been a Taliban insurgency has plainly morphed into a much broader resistance movement today. It incorporates warlords like Hekmatyar, the drug lords, common criminals, aggrieved Afghans looking for revenge (or worse, a job) and nationalists who simply want the foreigners out.
We continue to stubbornly fight a military war while "they" fight a political war and it is their war, not ours, that will decide the issue.
I really don't think we in the West understood the full ramifications of this horrible election until it was too late. Just look at what Holbrooke has been up to, trying to stick a finger or toe in every dam between Islamabad and Kabul. You do have to give the man credit for his astonishing stamina.
The reason why Western leaders are so complacent about Karzai is because we really don't have any idea what to do.
"So I ask myself, why is Holbrooke in Karzai's office insisting that there be a run-off? Wouldn't whether there is a second round depend on the outcome of the election? Why try to persuade Karzai?"
If the final vote count showed Karzai with 51% and fraud allegations hanging over 10% of the votes, the easiest pragmatic solution is for Karzai to simply agree for some of his votes to be annulled and a second round held. Although this messy solution might not appeal to "pure" democrats, it's been done before, albeit the other way round in Haiti:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_general_election,_2006
Pepe made my day. Interesting, amusing, and entertaining. If things are as he says, sending in more troops, drones, gunships, etc. make about as much sense as sending in christian missionaries to convert the Taliban.
How long will we have to wait for that articulate, moving, smoke clearing Obama speech that explains precisely why we have military operations in Afghanistan?
If Obama decides to make a u-turn, I think Pepe just gave him the withdrawal speech. Americans know a snake pit when they see one.
The Pentagon would rather keep pummeling Afghanistan forever, than leave and accept irrelevance.
Well, although I agree that this is no better than the situation in Iran, when you ask:
If Karzai is so widely suspected of stealing this election, why is there not the same global reaction against him as there was against Ahmadinejad in Iran? Is there an unwritten rule that allies of the West get cut some slack?
The global reaction against Ahmadinejad didn't come until after hundreds of thousands or more Iranians took to the streets. I think a good majority of Americans didn't believe that Iranians had it in them, that all Iranians were of the seizing-American-embassies variety, and didn't realize just how developed and educated Iran is. The reaction to Iran wasn't to the election but to the protestors.
"Is there an unwritten rule that allies of the West get cut some slack?"
Of course: Honduras
Damn, from my Buddhist Sufi Communist Libertarian Conservative
Unitarian Universalist perspective things are getting really complicated. Fortunately I never have cared much for democracy. Democracy does not work unless one has a well educated well informed citizenry. Well if the citizens are not Buddhist Sufi Communist Libertarian Conservative Unitarian Universalists it is defacto evidence that they are not well educated.
So in Iran we have a backward thinking religious wanna be trying to defend something that is very important to him either his money and power, or his interpretation of the Koran or the Quran. Who can say for sure. So he changes the result of an election to suit his desires. Keeping some slightly less backward but potentialy just as ruthless wanna be out of power who only supports democracy now because that is his ticket to power. I might do the same as either of these men depending on the circumstances.
Then in Afghanistan we have a Western Educated trying to defend his power and money or his desire to modernize Afghan society his way. Who really knows his motives. So he rigs an election and his opponents cry foul. The twist here is other opponents boycotted the election and either because their strength in numbers was substantial or because many people have just given up on the political process all together that the legitimacy of the election and therefore the government can be questioned regardless of of who wins. In this case those vying for power range from the backward to potentially the downright barbaric. If I were Karzai I would take drastic measures to keep the worst out of power too. Does Karzai know what will or will not do the job?
Ditto Iraq.
A country claiming to be the leader of the free world, whatever that means, has its fingers in all three of these pots.
There is now also lots of circumstantial evidence that this self proclaimed leader of the fee world had something to do with the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Honduras.
That is enough irony to meet the daily minimum requirements for a whole army of mercenaries.
Any explanation or prediction that poses events as a product of US-centric planning and plotting is not well grounded. The US has been strategically blind in the Kush and subcontinent affairs for decades. It's not likely that Holbrooke /Clinton/Gates/Petraeus have brought coherence to our policy, not even a malevolent one.
Russia, Iran, Arabia-Pakistan-China and India all have a hand to play, decades of Afghan relationships to draw on, in competition with each other. None of those power centers are in sync with our confused pronouncements and military efforts.
I would watch the Russia-India and Arabia-Pakistan-China consortiums for tell-tale action; don't pay too much attention to talk. Anglo-US-NATO players are the slow kids on the block in this century, and we're running our of chips to bet with.
In any election (Florida for instance), a slow count probably means that mechanics on both sides are holding precincts back, to deliver the deciding margin. No census = poor odds of an honest vote count.
The U.S. government became angry with Karzai when he stopped being enough of a yes-man. You don't really think you're getting the truth from signals from Holbrooke do you? Try twisting what he says 180 degrees this time. Holbrooke is buddy-buddy with Big Oil, big pollution. He's mixed signals all over the place. The U.S. is flip-flopping on poppies (huge profits within the Empire for the plutocrat money launderers) and other things all in the furtherance of raw imperialism. Karzai isn't getting cut any slack from the mainstream media in the U.S. The moment they're told to turn up the heat, they will. Everything up to now has just been setting the stage so the U.S. can put in a more compliant, pro-U.S., personal-payoffs, ruthless puppet.
Post a Comment
<< Home