President Karzai Points His Finger

Afghan President Karzai accuses UN over election Fraud

President Hamid Karzai is pointing his finger at the west today, accusing them of attempting to push him out of office. During President Karzai's statement he singled out American Ambassador Peter Galbraith. Incidentally I had planned on writing on the Ambassador before I read this story.

Last week I attended a presentation given by Ambassador Galbraith on this very subject, called Afghanistan: War of Necessity or Quagmire. A web search reveals that he's been traveling to quite a few places to give this presentation. Something he hinted at during his speech. Here's a link to a similar speech given to the Vermont Council on World Affairs.

Altogether I found him to be rather interesting, covering topic areas such as the country's need for decentralization and Afghanistan's recent history with Pakistan and the election:

The long and the short of it is that both Ambassador Galbraith and President Karzai have a lot of bad blood over last year's election fraud. According to Ambassador Galbraith the election was plauged with "wholesale" election fraud perpetrated by members of the election commission appointed by Karzai.

Karzai did manage to eke out a reelection- basically by getting his opponent to decline to stand for the runoff. Galbraith was dismissed from his role in the United Nations mission for criticizing events. Since then he has made it a point to speak out against Karzai's ongoing attempts to steal power in Afghanistan.

Galbraith is rightly angry- it it is NATO soldiers that protect his regime and Western dollars that fund his government and pay for elections. Karzai's vote rigging has made Afghanistan more dangerous and more expensive for its western allies. Karzai has since attempted to change election laws to remove international oversight of elections and replace them with his political allies. He did this over the objections of Afghanistan's parliament, and less than a year before this year's parliamentary elections.

Ambassador Galbraith had a couple suggestions for fixing Afghanistan's election system; first, truly remove the election officials appointed by Karzai and actually fire those found with their hands stuffing the ballot box. And in the long run constitutional reform designed to decentralize the country's governance structure- something that the Ambassador doesn't suspect is very high on the country's agenda. Galbraith  also states an alternative "If Afghans want to have a fraudulent election, they should pay for it themselves."

This is the heart of the issue. The international community is not in Afghanistan because they want to be. It is an expensive intervention in a remote region. There is little to no economic gain out of being there. The country is a source of drugs and is a potential threat to international security. These issues are important, but the international community's patience is very limited and there are other countries that have the same problems and are easier to get to. What does President Karzai think he'll be the president of without his allies? Does he think his government will last long when he can't exercise its authority outside of Kabul? Or does he think that Afghanistan is so indispensable to the international community that they will stay there forever no matter what?  Members of the Dutch government recently thought otherwise.

Afghanistan gets murkier

Article: Karzai Criticized Over Afghan poll watchdog move

President Hamid Karzai "won" last year's elections amidst wide spread allegations of vote fraud- many of which were documented by the country's Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC). It ended up that about a third of Karzai's votes were illegal.

He managed to keep his job, but has now fired all the internationally appointed members of the EEC. Its likely that Karzai will continue to keep his job for quite some time, as long as he can continue to keep the international community engaged. Its a stupid move all around designed to "win" some elections for Karzai's allies.

This doesn't work well for the people of Afghanistan- who already have to deal with grinding poverty and chronic insecurity, and now have a leader that is transparently crooked. It doesn't work terribly well for the United States, whose troops are fighting the Taliban and whom has poured billions of dollars into the country to build something lasting. Its a serious step backwards for the country, and legitimatizes its fledgling institions.

Does it even really work well for Karzai? The timing is rather good for people in the international community not to notice- with much of the world's focus on the Olympic games. If last year's elections were not an Emperor has no clothes moment, then firing the truth tellers certainly is. In the short run it will probably help Karzai win elections. In the long run, it is self destructive. It undermines his international backers will to continue to supply money and troops. 

One group it does work out rather well for the Taliban. Karzai really shouldn't be doing their propaganda work for them.

There needs to be accountability for this behavior. Otherwise the effort is little more than putting up a strawman (not even a strongman, as the government's influence is limited) and calling it a day. This will do nothing to make the country safer for anyone, will do nothing to make the country more just. It does nothing to save the lives of civilians or soldiers. All it serves to do is aggrandize Karzai and delegitimze his government. The Afghan people deserve better than this.

What about Afghan accountability for this? What about the country's civil society and the opposition parties? The future will tell if they will be able to use this power grab to hold the government to account. However with the election commission under the president's thumb, loudly boycotting the elections may be the best choice. 

Its tragic that our country is supporting a vote rigging leader in Afghanistan while condemning one next door in Iran.

A broadening of political debate in Bosnia?

Yesterday I attended this event hosted at the US Institute of Peace;



Bosnia Herzegovina: One Country or Not

The title of this event proved to be quite controversial. The Bosniak American Advisory Council for Bosnia and Herzegovina sent a representative with a letter explaining their displeasure. Copies were available at the front desk, of which I have one. I don't really know much about this organization, but I could see their point: Bosnia suffered an extremely violent and bloody war from 1992-95. From a Bosniak perspective they lost many people to maintain a unified Bosnia.

So the event began with a brief mea culpa from the moderator about the title- the offense was quite unintentional. Moreover the speaker was more likely than not to agree with the BAACBH.

The panel only had one speaker, Fahrudin Radončić a Bosnian media magnate, critic of the country's current politicians and founder of a new political party called Union for a Better Future of BH. He and his party argue that the main reason for Bosnia's ongoing political crisis and tenacious nationalism is due to a lack of economic development.

He actually spent very little time talking about the subject in the title- only mentioning that he didn't belive that Milrad Dodik, (Prime Minister of one of the country's two major political entities) wasn't serious about joining his entity with Serbia. He rather snarkily stated that if he did that he did he could no longer be Prime Minister- and enjoy the legal and illicit benefits of that office.

Many of the problems he identified weren't new to me- the need to combat corruption for example. Other ones were specific and were new. For example, he had some specific examples of corruption that he would address. The most prominent of these was prosecuting war profiteers who had used the war in the 1990s to privatize Bosnia's government owned enterprises. They used their political connections to take over said businesses. Although he didn't use names- he knew, and I suspect other people in the room knew as well exactly who he was talking about. The result of all this corruption he argued was that the country was unable to spend its reconstruction funds and most were sitting in the bank.

Mr. Radončić gave his perspective on political participation in Bosnian politics. Bosnians had to contend with heavily entrenched interests if they wanted to participate in politics. He argued that he was justified in using his media empire as a base of power politically because Bosnia's current leaders use their influence to freeze most citizens out of political discussion. There is a bit of a "can't make omelets without breaking eggs" mentality here. It is notable that he looks up to Italy's Silvio Berlusconi. 

In many ways he talked the talk. He was a moderate and spoke of the value of including all Bosnians, and even working closely with Croatia and Serbia.

My impression was that he had picked up the politician thing rather well-- he was very good at using the questions to explain his message (and avoiding their uncomfortable aspects) and he stuck with his message. I'm not so certain that his fusion of politics and media is really a great direction for Bosnia's still emerging institutions. Sure, the goals seem good enough- put people to work on public works projects (Bosnia has an excessively high unemployment rate and needs work on its physical infrastructure) but in a sense he is proposing the exchange of one type of elite for another.

Most importantly he didn't address the social trust issue, which is a huge obstacle to broadening the inclusivity of the country's social and political institutions.

Empowering Who in Haiti?

Welcome to the first entry of Equanimity! Everyone is welcome to read, comment and stay awhile. Since this blog is in its early stages I’m open to input on its content and format. Thank you very much for taking the time to drop by.

For this first essay I’m going to be writing about the crisis in Haiti.

Haitian government gets just 1 cent of every aid dollar.
And
Haiti - a UN protectorate?

Together these two articles address the issue of who should be responsible for the relief and reconstruction of Haiti. The gist of the first article is that donors from the United States are bypassing the Haitian government and relying on established organizations inside the country to provide disaster relief aid. The second article underscores the international community’s obligation to help in Haiti, but then suggests that the best way it can help is by taking over control of the country. If the analysis conducted in the first article is to be believed than the sidelining of Haitians has already begun.

There are compelling reasons for relying on outside actors at the current time, when lives depend on receiving aid promptly, but this not good for the country in the long run. Bypassing the governments of corrupt countries is nothing new. Few donors want their money to go towards a new Mercedes for some corrupt official- thus it is common for money and resources to non-governmental organizations which then provide the service.

The problem in Haiti is that this is already established practice. NGOs provide many services that governments are responsible for. This has contributed to the privatization of the government’s functions. Thus the government performs fewer services and has less responsibility and less accountability. A government like this has less and less to do with the needs of Haitians and more to do with the adventures and intrigues of the elite.

Yes the government is corrupt, but continuing the long running trend of bypassing the government will continue to erode Haiti's government and the country’s independence. It was not only homes and schools that were destroyed in the earthquake, but the very institutions of Haiti's government. These institutions had already been in decline before the disaster. They will certainly need rebuilding after it. NGOs, for all the good work that they do are not a substitute for a government.

Haiti’s government will need reconstruction, but more importantly it needs a change in philosophy.

The protectorate article addresses this very thing, but comes to the wrong conclusions The most striking statement is at the tail-end this article.

"Given the enormity of this disaster aid alone cannot save Haiti, and certainly not with its existing institutions. Undemocratic as it sounds I believe the United Nations should declare Haiti a UN protectorate and take direct control of all institutions and the economy for a period of not less than ten years. During this period Haiti should be a tax-free zone with the cost of reconstruction borne by the international community (especially the US and France) as a form of reparation. During that period institutions can be rebuilt under UN supervision with local leadership in an advisory role. Democracy can wait until after economic recovery. And may God help Haiti."

The academic the author quotes (Prof Sir Hilary Beckles of the University of the West Indies) says several things. One the United Nations should act as the government and administration of the country. Second that Haiti shall not collect taxes, and the costs of governance and reconstruction should be covered by the international community. Third, Haitians will only serve in an advisory capacity; Haitian democracy will wait until there is an "economic recovery".

Can a protectorate be effective in building a clean and efficient government? A protectorate is essentially foreign rule. The problem with a protectorate is that it can be easy to get into one, but very difficult to achieve the goals needed to get out. In Bosnia and Herzegovina for example, the international community established a protectorate that has governed the country since 1997.  In Bosnia the international community oversaw an elected Parliament (this is less ambitious than what the author is suggesting here). Even with elections and somewhat functioning institutions this protectorate has been unable to achieve the goals for its closure- despite working towards this since 2005!  The approach employed by the international community in Bosnia has been unable to cultivate the things that make democracy work such as an empowered and engaged citizenry.

In Haiti the author is suggesting that a completely new state be rebuilt by the international community for Haitians. It will have an indefinite timeline based on the economic recovery of a country that has been in economic and ecological freefall for decades (I mention ecological because Haiti’s economy remains based on agriculture). Haitians are invited to participate as advisors not leaders in their own country.

How is this going to build local leadership? How is this going to empower Haitians? If the international community (or whoever takes over) creates a new set of institutions from above it will fail to address the politics that contributed to Haiti’s misery.

I’m not opposed to the international community taking a prominent role in Haiti. However any intervention in the national government should temporary and linked to discrete and achievable goals. The international community should avoid acting as a grand engineer of new Haitian institutions, but instead use its resources towards supporting and restoring institutions at the local level. The goal should be to create an environment where the Haitians can build their confidence and the tools they need to improve their government. This will mean pursuing both economic and political initiatives simultaneously- not waiting for an economic recovery before emphasizing democracy.

At the same time it’s necessary to address the issue of corruption and reconstruction at the national level in the near future. Taking responsibility for reconstruction would limit corruption but would further undermine the nation’s independence (further delegitimizing the government). Instead of bypassing the government more aid needs to be sent thought it, but with strict conditions on reporting and how resources can be used. These funds would not be allocated towards specific projects per se, but could be allocated towards specific competencies (roads, hospitals, clean water). These reports should be made available to all Haitians. Not only would Haitian leaders be accountable to their donors (funding would be reallocated to more honest players), but their constituents would know when and how much their leaders have cost them as it happens.

This approach would help reinforce accountability in Haiti’s politicians while empowering the Haitian people. This would do far more to rebuild Haiti’s institutions and improve the quality of life than a semi-permanent protectorate. In the years to come, Haitians need to be given more initiative and leadership in their country, not less. While in the short term it is necessary for the international community to take a leading role so that lives can be saved, if it stays in this role too long it risks undermining the very goals it seeks to promote.