Friday
Apr022010
Afghanistan: Karzai's Middle-Finger Reply to the US
Friday, April 2, 2010 at 17:09 
UPDATED 1600 GMT: Some political fun this afternoon over the Karzai statement. Abdullah Abdullah, who lost to Karzai in last year's Presidential election, told reporters, "As a former colleague and doctor, I think this is beyond a normal attitude." White House spokesman Robert Gibbs settled for "genuinely troubling" to describe Karzai's remarks.The Majlis has a far more pragmatic assessment of why Karzai made his statement.
---
Let's check in with Hamid Karzai, five days after Barack Obama made a 26-hour round trip to give him a 30-minute telling-off about corruption, drugs, and mismanagement. I bet he's behaving himself now!
Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, delivered extraordinarily harsh criticism on Thursday of the Western governments fighting in his country, the United Nations, and the British and American news media, accusing them of perpetrating the fraud that denied him an outright victory in last summer’s presidential elections.
Afghanistan: US Night Raids v. “Hearts and Minds”? (Porter)
What? Are you sure about that?
I mean, after all, the US and NATO followed up their Presidential stick with the carrot of allowing Karzai's brother, a focal point for criticism about financial irregularities, to maintain his authority in Kandahar?
“There is no doubt that the fraud [in last August's Presidential election] was very widespread, but this fraud was not committed by Afghans, it was committed by foreigners,” Mr. Karzai said. “This fraud was committed by Galbraith [Peter Galbraith, the deputy United Nations special representative], this fraud was committed by Morillon [Philippe Morillon, the chief election observer for the European Union], and this fraud was committed by embassies.”
April Fools' Day, right? Any moment now, Karzai was going to turn around, give a smile, and say, "Just funning you, Barack --- thanks to you and America for all your help."
“In this situation there is a thin curtain between invasion and cooperation-assistance,” said Mr. Karzai, adding that if the perception spread that Western forces were invaders and the Afghan government their mercenaries, the insurgency “could become a national resistance.”
Hmm, guess not.
One possible explanation for the speech is that Karzai was trying to give himself public cover as a dedicated nationalist, standing up to Washington, even as he gave way to Obama. That's certainly what The New York Times was hoping: "One motive for the angry speech might be an attempt to protect himself politically, since it is probable that he will have to accede to Western demands that he remove the officials on the election commission who were seen as most complicit in the fraud."
Another explanation, however, is that Karzai has just made it clear that he will not be implementing the US agenda in full. Instead, look for more rounds of political manoeuvre as the Afghan President positions himself amidst not only Washington but also his own supporters, the Afghan insurgency, and other interested outside powers.
A story, in other words, that will run and run. President Obama, you might want to have Air Force One warmed up for another long-distance flight.
Reader Comments (10)
Some spicy quotes from the Karzai-Galbraith dust-up:
http://washingtonindependent.com/81202/galbraith-hits-back-it-is-karzai-and-his-government-thats-the-fraud
"April Fools’ Day, right? Any moment now, Karzai was going to turn around, give a smile, and say, “Just funning you, Barack — thanks to you and America for all your help.”
I just heard a commentator on Al Jazeera make a similar statement. Quite strange
@Scott Lucas
Webster Tarpley on Russia Today...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXotMefAbgM&feature=fvhl
He explains current geopolitical relations; China stance on Iran, and something that could explain Karzai's attitiude today.
His words:
"The answer seem to be here in Washington that Afghanistan is slipping out of US/NATO control into the Chinese orbit".
he gives a very interesting analysis
sorry I misqouted...
“The answer seems to be --[a great fear]-- here in Washington..."
danial,
Thanks for this link.
S.
Karzi can position himself as a dedicated nationalistic all he wants but he needs to do it on his own dime. American tax payers will not fund it. Then I would like to see how many days he would last.
Hallo Mike,
maybe a task for your spamfilter or do you think that the comment #8 is needed? :) Regards gunni
Gunni,
Sorry the filter missed this fine contribution to the debate. Now taken care of....
S.
Afghanistan, color revolutions and the critical role of the Voice Of America.
April 6, 2010 by politicalsnapshots.wordpress.com
Afghanistan, color revolutions and the critical role of the Voice Of America.
It is obvious that a huge political crack is appearing between Washington and Kabul. After the 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the world knows that Hamid Karzai was installed as the President of Afghanistan by the U.S. So, when I heard President Karzai accusing the U.N. and the international community of “interfering with the outcome of last year’s presidential elections and attempting to weaken his authority”, and just so we would have clarity, when he stated to the BBC that the “U.S. and others played a role in perpetrating the fraud”, I thought this is the time to think in terms of a “color revolution”. But, Why?
It seems that the U.S. was not too happy with Karzai’s re-election, since then, it has become U.S. policy to blame Karzai’s government of corruption and incompetence. In pursuing the agenda of sidelining Karzai, the U.S. has started dealing directly with Afghan provinces (e.g.Kandahar,Helmand) bypassing the central government. Regardless of the wishes of the U.S. it has no choice but to stick with Karzai for the time being.
President Karzai also knows that the U.S. is not going to be involved in the affairs of Afghanistan for the long haul. At least, in terms of military involvement. Therefore, he does not want to be seen as an agent of a foreign power by Afghanis who have always been suspicious of foreigners through out their history. Moreover, he must think that the time is ripe for him to make amends with certain war lords and threaten the U.S. According to The Wall Street Journal, Karzai said: “that the U.S. was interfering with Afghan affairs and that the Taliban would become a legitimate resistance movement if it did not stop.” Interesting.
As stated already, despite a serious U.S. aversion towards its original friend, Hamid Karzai, America has no choice but to call him a partner and plan a meeting with him in May,2010. This state of affairs between Washington and Kabul, leads one to think in terms of The Rose Revolution in Georgia, The Orange in Ukraine, The Tulip in Kyrgyzstan, The Cedar in Lebanon, The Grape in Moldova, The Green in Iran, and some unnamed ones, like in Ethiopia, (2005)etc. give credence to some when they raise the issue of U.S. government and certain NGO’s support and even planning in order to serve the interests of the west.
Sreeram Chaulia wrote, “ transitional actors, comprising of international Ngo’s at the hub of advocacy networks capitalize on opportunity structures offered by internationalism, acting as vectors of influence and maintaining constant criticism of vulnerable target states.” Chaulia continues, “Transitional actors penetrate target states by harping on issue areas like human rights that enable coalitions with powerful state actors who favor such norms.” He concludes,” rarely has the US promoted human rights and democracy in a region when it did not suit its grander foreign-policy objectives”.
According to The Guardian, USAID, National Endowment For Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and Freedom House are directly involved with supporting the color revolutions. One can add to this list, The Soros Foundation, Open Society Institute in which a number of Central Asian nations were forced to shut down OSI regional offices after the Orange revolution in Ukraine and, the U.S. based Albert Einstein Institution that activists from Serbia and Ukraine have claimed to be trained by in the formation of their strategies.
Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary of the U.S. treasury writing on Iran, said “according to Kenneth Timmerman head of the Foundation for Democracy, it was the U.S. money that funded Mousavi’s claims that Ahmadinejad stole the last Iranian election.” Moreover,”during President George W. Bush’s regime, it became public knowledge that American money is used to purchase Iranians to work against their own country. In 2007 The Washington Post reported that Bush authorized spending more than $ 400 million U.S. dollars for activities that included supporting rebel groups opposed to the country’s ruling clerics.”
A number of people who have closely followed the successes of color revolutions concur, that the key to victory rests with the able work of The Voice Of America, (VOA). Without its positive coverage of the works of International NGO’s and its local agents, and its continuous denunciations of the policies of target countries, nothing would have been accomplished.
The VOA which got its start in 1942 when it broadcast via shortwave to Nazi Germany is primarily a propaganda outlet for the U.S. government, which uses it to further its global political, military and economic interests. As a U.S. government propaganda outlet, the VOA is barred from broadcasting in the U.S. by the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948. “Information produced by VOA for audiences outside the United States shall not be disseminated within the United States”.
The U.S. understands how potent the VOA is as a propaganda tool. No wonder, it lashes out rudely on countries that try to limit or control VOA’s dissemination of what they consider to be irresponsible propaganda that leads to incitements. Now, consider H.R. 2278 which was introduced by Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL). The bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, by an overwhelming vote of 395 to 3 with 36 abstentions.
The Bill entitled “Anti-American Incitement To Violence In The Middle East” States in its findings section:
“(1) Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are the foundations of free and prosperous societies worldwide, and with the freedom of the press and freedom of expression comes the responsibility to repudiate purveyors of incitement to violence.”
In the definitions section of the bill it defines Anti-American Incitement To Violence.
“(1) ANTI-AMERICAN INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE.–The term “anti-American incitement to violence” means the act of persuading, encouraging, instigating, advocating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a violent act against any person, agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the United States.”
In the Bill’s section of Statement of policy, it states,
It shall be the policy of the United States to—
“designate as Specially Designated Global Terrorists satellite providers that knowingly and willingly contract with entities designated as Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224, to broadcast their channels, or to consider implementing other punitive measures against satellite providers.”
Finally, the report section of the Bill directs the President of the United States to do the following:
(1)” REQUIREMENT FOR REPORTS.–Beginning 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on anti-American incitement to violence in the Middle East.”
(2) “CONTENT.–The reports required under paragraph (1) shall include—“
(A)” a country-by-country list and description of media outlets that engage in anti-American incitement to violence; and”
(B)” a list of satellite companies that carry mediums described in subparagraph (A) or designated under Executive Order 13224.”
I am a firm believer in national sovereignty for all independent countries of the world (irrespective of where they are located, or their GNP). In this case, America’s supreme and independent authority to rule, and make laws that it deems is in the interest of its people is unquestionable. It only becomes the mother of all hypocrisies when the U.S. denies other sovereign nations not to do, what it believes is the right thing to do for itself.
Professor Mekonen Haddis
"I am a firm believer in national sovereignty for all independent countries "
This is an interesting subject matter in itself
For example - was the country known as Iraq, when under the control of the regime of Saddam Hussein, an independent country with national sovereignty? Or was it a country whose national sovereignty had been stolen away illegally and at the point of a gun by a group of people, who then described themselves as the "legal/legitimate" Government of Iraq??
This could then lead on to whether Iran is indeed a sovereign independent country today - or something else.
Barry