Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "Get Karzai Out of the Line of Fire"

April 13, 2010 | 5 comments | Print this Article | E-Mail Your Opinion

Get Karzai Out of the Line of Fire

Hubertus Hoffman: President Karzai should be removed from the line of fire by going into exile in Europe. His inability to reconcile with the Taliban, 2009’s fraudulent election, and his poor reputation in Pakistan all indicate why he should be leave his position. Afghanistan needs a fresh start with a new government.

Four months ago the World Security Network had already proposed moving Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai out of the line of fire - one of the first global media organisations to do so:

"Karzai should be invited by France into a golden retirement (previously managed successfully with African friends of the French leadership), as he is burned out after eight years. The West should support a more dynamic, credible leadership in Kabul, one legitimized by elections by the end of 2010. We should then see the first positive results of this new strategy."

Then on January 22, 2010 we repeated our proposal: "Taliban leader Mullah Omar should be offered exile in Saudi Arabia, and Afghan President Karzai should be offered exile in France as a means of facilitating a new beginning."

Why?

Here are ten reasons why the allies have to get Hamid Karzai out of the line of fire in Afghanistan as soon as possible:

President Karzai is burned out after eight years of life-threatening power struggles. He can leave his concrete bunker palace in Kabul only for a maximum of 30 minutes. In an 2008 interview, he said: "I am an exhausted man, as I have been involved in this struggle for 22 years, not only seven." This is too much for any politician, even someone like Bismarck, Reagan or Obama. Any good friend would advise Karzai to retreat now. It is hard to blame him for being drained and spent. Unfortunately, the U.S. and their allies have not managed any process of refreshment at the top in Kabul in recent years; they have allowed this gradually fatal harassment. Like a boxer who is wounded and cannot win, Hamid Karzai should be taken out of the Afghan boxing ring by his western coaches and sponsors. The sooner the better, as according to a high-ranking UN official Karzai's latest disturbing speeches are only part of the problem. Afghanistan needs a fresh, unconsumed and credible president. It needs good leadership, not someone jumpy and nervous at the top.
Karzai's hopes for a personal reconciliation with the Taliban are naive. There is unfortunately no chance at all for this. Hardcore Taliban will hate him forever; they have tried to kill him several times, and will continue trying.
His brutal manipulation of the 2009 elections was not a sin so much as an act of incompetence and hunger for power. It destroyed his credibility - or what remained of it - primarily in the eyes of his own people. When he dared to accuse his allies of eight years, including UN, EU and U.S. representatives, of "massive fraud" to undermine him, Karzai crossed the Rubicon to become seriously unreliable in the eyes of those who have spent more than $200 billion of taxpayers money and lost more than 1,700 soldiers supporting him.
He is therefore now much more a problem than a solution; this includes his brother.
He has become a 'loose cannon' in the fight for freedom in Afghanistan. He is now another risk factor, as seen in his infamous Kandahar speech to tribal elders, where he spoke of appeasement to them and challenged the long-planned offensive against the Taliban by both his own troops and ISAF. It is hard to manage too many risks concurrently, and makes failure of both the latest offensive and ISAF itself more likely.
Karzai is not needed. Several others could do a much better job. Diplomatic dogma so far has been that there is no alternative to him. This is totally wrong. One option is Abdullah Addullah, but there are several others. Afghanistan needs a new beginning and a credible, not rotten, government. A relatively unknown newcomer, coming out of the blue like Obama, could achieve this. Afghanistan needs a new and younger man representing hope for this ancient land, not a burned-out, unreliable president.
Only two ministers were not corrupt in Karzai's previous government. Corruption remains endemic, as does poppy production, and the quality of his rule is low indeed. The West was naïve to hand over billions of dollars of aid without direct control. When the German Minister for Development met him two weeks ago, Karzai asked once more for free money - he will not change his demands.
With Karzai in power fair elections the end of this year are impossible; yet they are urgently needed to avoid a vacuum.
His reputation in Pakistan is near zero and remains very low even within the Pashtun community that is the backbone of the insurgency. He never stopped hating Pakistan.Yet peace without both Pakistan and a consensus with the Pashtuns, peace-making is impossible for NATO.
The U.S. and NATO cannot and should not risk the life of one more soldier to protect a President who openly argues to members of his own Parliament that if foreign interference continues he would join the Taliban.

French President Nikolas Sarkozy should take the lead, together with the UK's personally influential Prince Charles, to negotiate a dignified exit for Afghan President Karzai within the next few months.

This is no time to leave the status quo and 'wait and see'.

Hubertus Hoffmann is President and Founder of the World Security Network Foundation and an entrepreneur and geostrategist based in London. His article was first published on the World Security Network's website.

Related Material from Atlantic Community:

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

April 14, 2010

Jakob Schirmer, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Gold Contributor (134)

I like this comment! What's this?

Bearing in mind some basic rules of international law, I guess this scenario must be a hoax intending to provoke the defence of Afghan statehood and sovereignty. There was something like non-interference, wasn't it?

April 15, 2010

Member deleted

I like this comment! What's this?

I agree to Jakob,

however if Mr. Karzai asks for retirement and assesses Afghanistan as too dangerous to enjoy pension, the EU should not hesitate to provide him a nice house.

I would like to ask Mr. Hoffman for clarification on benchmarks his office in London assumes to be most appropriate in order to elaborate realistic aims in Afghanistan that after the collapse of the British Empire between WWII and Bretton Woods left the country in a vacuum that looms behind conflicts on the ground?

Nevertheless, I agree to Mr. Hoffman that Karzai should deny categorically any political career in Europe and the US given his obvious undemocratic attitudes.

Regarding his Taliban comment, let me say if in return the Taliban bow in to a constitution and disarmament, hence join arguable transparent political process in return everything would be fine, isn't it? Stability could come in and NATO could retreat with most of combat troops. Or does London have any extended, less official, agenda in a former colony?

April 15, 2010

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (503)

I like this comment! What's this?

Mr. Hoffman is absolutely right. Thank you for this important suggestion.

@ Jakob Schirmer: you cite non-interference. Well, then, what about the 100.000+ NATO-troops currently on duty in Afghanistan, which are not really under the command of Afghans or Karzai, right? We found it very surprising when Karzai promised to tribal elders that no military operation would be conducted without their consent, because that is not really the kind of restriction which at least the U.S. forces are ready to accept - not to speak about the contrasting typical character of anti-insurgent missions and Karzai's very limited acceptance in his own country.

That Karzai cannot leave his bunker any more, and the way how he is now manouvering against allied forces while being totally dependent on their support, shows just one thing: he has lost support in Afghanistan. He is a marionet of the occupation forces, and by supporting him, we take responsibility for the election fraud. The only way for Karzai to survive a little bit longer is through corruption and western aid.

But Jakob Schirmer is right in one point: we don't have the right to decide who should be the president of Afghanistan. That we still support Karzai despite the obvious fraud of the election shows only that Afghan self-governance it is not our goal. The presence of our troops means occupation and aims at strategic control of the region, and Karzai is seemingly the only suited marionet at the moment for the illusion of some Afghan self-government.

However, his retirement would offer a chance to change our strategy and retreat without leaving the country in total chaos, which will be the inevitable outcome if the foreign troops stay much longer.

If Karzai resigns, that would be an opportunity for another Loya Jirga - the Afghan way of self-governance (democratic elections in systems as in western democracies are alien to this society and have nothing to do with freedom and self-governance since they ignore the tribal organisation). It would be crucial to invite all "insurgent" groups to join this Loya Jirga and give them a real voice. That might allow real dialogue.

Giving a promise that all foreign forces will withdraw according to a clear timetable IF the Loya Jirga can agree on a new president may give a unique chance to negotiate a lasting relative peace in Afghanistan. We may even preserve a little bit of western influence, though chances for that diminish with each day of violence.

I am convinced, the war and (even more important) the political process in Afhganistan are lost if there is not a dramatic correction of the political course very soon, as could be the resignation of Karzai. If we stay further and try the control the country militarily, the outcome will be defeat. It would be interesting if someone would analyse possible geo-strategic scenarios connected with such an Afghanistan-Trauma of NATO and the U.S. Vietnam's impact was pretty important, let's see how Afghanistan will be.

April 15, 2010

Howard A Jones

I like this comment! What's this?

Although Karzai is a problem, his removal would lead to greater problems. It must be recognized that the political pattern in Afghanistan is infinitely more fragmented than that in Iraq and that a democratically elected centralized leadership is not possible.

April 20, 2010

Rose

I like this comment! What's this?

Afghanistan needs a fresh with old brain man ( not a slave for neighbouring and non countries, to implement and follow the strategies of AFG invaders and enemies of Afghans) Afghans are really tired of war, tired of being victims in the arena of world politicians. Enough is enough, we should open our eyes, we are not in at the starting of 1492, we are at 21st Century.