Though U.S. President Barack Obama expressed continued
confidence in Afghan President Hamid Karzai's ability to be a "strong
partner" in helping allied forces "dismantle Al Qaeda and its affiliate networks,"
tensions between Karzai and the U.S. government remain high.
The Afghan president has made a series
of combative remarks about the U.S. role in Afghanistan and even went as
far as to say he would turn the Taliban
resistance into a national one if the United States continued to meddle into
Afghan politics. In response, the White House announced
that it was considering canceling Karzai's scheduled May 12 visit"if he continues to make
anti-Western public statements." It is this response that has left many Afghans
concerned over the future of Afghanistan.
But this latest kerfuffle is hardly the beginning of fraying ties, the roots
of which go back to last year's Afghan presidential election. Many who watched the elections closely, including
Afghans and those from the international community, saw Karzai's
reelection as the result of a botched process, a continuation of the same
corrupt government. And while many in Afghanistan are concerned and
unsure about this row between U.S. and Afghan officials, some see this as a
sign that Karzai is finally beginning to "wake up."
Supporters of Karzai's recent retaliation feel that he is right to have accused
the international community, particularly the United States, for interfering
too much into Afghan politics. In a televised speech that aired on April 1st, Karzai admitted that Afghanistan is occupied by the international
forces and that he has no control of any of the ministries; he has simply
become the international countries' puppet for their own political agendas in
Afghanistan. Rumors are that the government appointed Independent Elections Commission's
Chairman Azizullah Ludin -- who recently resigned from his post -- was
supposedly pressured by a U.S. representative to announce Abdullah Abdullah as
the winner of the run-off elections. Buzz also has it that members of the IEC
were threatened by the same U.S. official to "dig their own graves"
if Karzai was to be reelected in the runoffs.
While some in Afghanistan are seeing a new and improved Karzai, others see
cause for growing concern, accusing the president of being "ignorant"
or "crazy." Others fear that Karzai's remarks are just the latest in a
string of policy missteps -- (i.e. Mullah Biradar's arrest by the United States
and Pakistan/ISI while Karzai was in the midst of talks with him) -- that will
only further isolate Afghanistan from the international community.
Afghans here do say that Karzai acknowledges the mishaps that have occurred within
the Afghan government and that he accepts responsibility; however, the blame
for corruption does not wholly only rest on the Afghan government. The
international community's role in this is a large one, says Karzai, a statement
that so many Afghans agree with. Moreover, on April 5 some members of
Parliament said President Karzai over that weekend even went on to threaten
that if the United States doesn't differentiate between helping and occupying
Afghanistan, that the Taliban resistance will become national.
From the Pashtun ethnic group, the overall mood towards Karzai here is of
sympathy -- even those that were dissatisfied with the result of last year's
presidential elections. Rumor has it that Karzai sent one of his brother and
Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta to Moscow in the hope of negotiating some
sort of an alliance with the country. Same goes for Karzai's recent delegation
to Iran.
As things start to heat up at a rapid speed, people are concerned that the
result of this brawl might be the end of Karzai. People are worried that
because of his outcry, Karzai has become a barrier in the international
community's long-term strategy and that they won't be surprised to see him
assassinated. Other Afghans, including majority of the Tajiks, say that Karzai
is only deepening his reputation of a corrupted leader and that he is "losing
it" in terms of controling the country and working together with the
international community. As far as what the actual outcome will be -- many
people simply hope that the brawl will be quelled and that the efforts for peace
process will continue.
Asma Nemati, a researcher from Kabul, is an instructor at the American University of Afghanistan.
All
eyes were focused on the U.S. early this morning in Kabul, when Obama delivered
his long-awaited speech spelling out his new Afghanistan strategy. What are
people's reactions? A bit contradictory and halfhearted, like the strategy
itself. Obama is willing to support Afghanistan and defeat terrorists, yet also
set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. And, likewise, Afghans feel
the same way.
According
to many, the influx of 30,000 U.S. troops starting early next year and an
additional 5,000 NATO troops is definitely needed to secure some of the
volatile parts of Afghanistan, especially the south -- Helmand and Kandahar. In
fact, there was no major debate in Afghanistan about the number of troops
coming, like there was in the U.S., as long as there is some sort of military
help in not only training but also increasing the number of the Afghan security
forces - who lack proper facilities for training, get paid a meager salary, and
at least half of whom are illiterate. Many Afghans are hopeful about this, yet
quite pessimistic about Obama's timetable for the troops' return to the U.S.,
which would start in July of 2011, only a year and a half after the start of
deployment for the additional troops.
Instead
of specifying a definite date for the start of the withdrawal, there's
preference among Afghans I've spoken with of the drawdown being conditioned on
an ongoing assessment of the situation beyond July 2011 -- but not to exceed
five to seven years.
Corruption
is the second biggest issue the U.S. and the Afghan governments have to
address, according to many Afghans, after security. However, the responsibility
falls more on Afghans themselves. Afghan citizens should take part in dealing
with corruption by holding criminals accountable to the rule of law. To curb
corruption, the first step would be to get rid of notorious figures within the
government who are connected with criminal activities. And if necessary, U.S.
forces should help the Afghan government to pursue the latter.
In
regards to dealing with al Qaeda, the home of the problem is the mountainous
AfPak border, and it would be a foolish mistake to focus only on Afghanistan or
Pakistan alone. However, some Afghans voice concern about U.S. forces working
too closely with the ISI, noting that the Pakistani intelligence agency is not
completely devoid of those who support terrorists itself, and so the U.S. would
inadvertently support terrorism if it continues to work with ISI in the Pakistan
border region to get rid of major strongholds of the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Finally,
a small number of Afghans are concerned about something quite different: U.S.
occupation in Afghanistan. Even when I point out specifics from the speech this
morning where Obama blatantly denies such allegations, this group is still
skeptical about U.S. military presence here. They cite that The United States'
only interest in Afghanistan is to create military bases out of which attacks
can be launched on both Pakistan and Iran.
After
all this talk from both Afghan and American leaders, it's now time to put their
money where their mouths are.
Asma Nemati, a researcher from Kabul, is an instructor at the American University of Afghanistan.
A day before President Hamid Karzai's inauguration on
November 19, traffic -- incoming and outgoing -- on all major roads in Kabul
was at a standstill. I left my house to get to a clinic via a route that
normally takes twenty minutes, but due to the numerous presidents and other VIPs
flying in, I had to take a long detour across and around Kabul, so the trip took
nearly two and a half hours.
Security is tight; at least one fully equipped Afghan
National Army soldier could be seen today every 100 meters on major roads out
of the airport. From the airport, lines of SUVs with red government license
plates filed into the city nearly every hour. On the actual inauguration day,
two districts surrounding the presidential palace will be completely closed for
security purposes.
The pre-inauguration mood in Kabul is tense. Television ads
this week have been warning Afghans to stay home and limit movements on November 19. Threats of attacks are piling higher and higher as organizations
scuttle to advise caution to Afghan and international workers alike.
Besides that, media access to the inauguration ceremony is
quite limited as even major news agencies are struggling to sneak one or two of
their reporters on the guest list, while the rest will be sent to a
media center where they can watch the inauguration live on television. In fact,
provincial governors are also not allowed to observe the inauguration ceremony;
I was talking with a governor a few days ago and he was disappointed at not
being able to meet with the honored guests, among them Hillary Clinton, Asif
Ali Zardari, Bernard Kouchner, and David Miliband.
Regardless of who is watching, Karzai has a lot to address
in his big inauguration speech. Pressure is mounting from all sides -- U.S.,
Afghan, international -- on the president to get a grip on corruption in order
for the international community to continue aiding Afghanistan. Even as Karzai vows
to stamp out corruption, he has yet to reveal how and whether the international
community will play a big role in that effort. But, of course, this is also a
critical point in Karzai's second term as he's still in the process of mapping
out his political cabinet.
Most in Afghanistan today will be glued to TV screens or
radio speakers. In general, Afghans would like the inauguration to be over with
so that they can continue their lives. Let's just hope Karzai keeps at least
some of his promises to improve security and combat corruption.
Asma Nemati, a researcher from Kabul, is an instructor at the American University of Afghanistan.
It's about time the Obama administration focused on what's
necessary for Afghanistan:
security. With Hamid Karzai's presidency renewed, the U.S. has another chance to show the world
community, and -- more importantly -- U.S.
citizens, that there's still hope for Afghanistan and that the Obama
administration is serious about tackling down major problems. But, what are
these problems? What's the reality on the ground?
As someone who talks to many Afghans -- from government
officials to shopkeepers, students and others -- and the international
community on a daily basis, the answer is very clear: Afghans need security and
stability before anything else can be put forth. In the past, there have been
several problems with providing an adequate strategy to tackle this problem,
most of which have led to the Taliban winning back major parts of the country.
However, this cannot be tolerated anymore, neither by the Afghans nor the
international community that's here to help.
In terms of security, more troops are fundamental. But this
has to be spelled out clearly by the Obama administration. When speaking to
Afghans here, they agree that more troops are needed, but an entire plan is
also needed to know when the troops will arrive, where they will be deployed, what
will they carry out, and -- this is what concerns Afghans a lot -- when they
will be leaving. The what part is the most important one; Afghans here agree
that more troops are necessary to support Afghanistan's own security forces,
the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police.
Among the increased number of troops, Afghanistan needs many experts to
train and coach Afghans in security-related issues. Not only will
this involve Afghans in rebuilding their own country, but it will also enable
them to see results coming from their work. This will also allow a realistic
timetable for U.S.
forces to leave: as soon as effective and transparent outcomes are seen.
Moreover, focus needs to be placed on clearing out Taliban
strongholds in the border region of Pakistan
and Afghanistan.
The Taliban are gaining numbers and sympathizers in what has become a recurring
nightmare that Afghanistan
and the world community only woke up from nine years ago. We cannot afford to
wait any longer and let the area be run by thugs who have absolutely no respect
for humanity, let alone themselves and their countrymen.
Asma Nemati, a researcher from Kabul, is an instructor at the American University of Afghanistan.
