Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH  
share
email
print
reprint
font size
options
 
READER FEEDBACK
Post a comment


Worldview: When Kerry met Karzai

The senator showed that a polite, private push can work with the Afghan president.

Whatever Afghanistan strategy President Obama chooses will hinge on whether U.S. officials can work with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

U.S. frustration at Karzai's failure to rein in corruption, which feeds Taliban gains, has been building. It peaked over the blatant rigging of the presidential election in August.

Vice President Biden and Richard Holbrooke, special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, have confronted Karzai in public, with no results. So it's been fascinating to watch the impact of the softer approach tried on Obama's behalf by Sen. John Kerry (backed up by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's phone calls).

Kerry, who was on a previously scheduled trip to Kabul, spent several days closeted in private with Karzai last week. Whatever he said persuaded a reluctant Karzai to agree to a Nov. 7 runoff election against his closest competitor. So is it possible that a reset of U.S. relations with Karzai is under way?

"I am convinced President Karzai understands the need to make some changes," Kerry told the Council on Foreign Relations on Monday.

One can imagine Kerry's words to the Afghan leader. No doubt the Massachusetts Democrat stressed that Congress and the U.S. public won't support an extended American troop presence unless Karzai changes course.

Kerry even said he talked with Karzai "about the perceptions of his brother," Ahmed Wali Karzai. The younger Karzai is a senior official in the key, Taliban-ridden province of Kandahar, and is often accused of heavy involvement in the opium trade. Kerry said he'd sought information from U.S. intelligence sources on Ahmed Wali's alleged drug links, but "nobody has [shown him] the smoking gun."

Kerry went on to say - in diplomatic mode - that Armed Wali Karzai had done things "that haven't been helpful" and other things "that are very helpful to us. And we need to look hard at the balance of how we can best manage Kandahar.

"I am confident that is a conversation that is going to be engaged in very, very soon with the president," Kerry continued. "And it ought to be done at that level. ..." In other words, everything will be on the table - but in private, high-level talks.

Here's what's so crucial about Kerry's intervention: If the Nov. 7 elections are indeed held, Karzai will almost certainly win them. So it is essential to repair the U.S. relationship with him, which has gone very sour.

Clearly, open threats don't work; Holbrooke's and Biden's public anger appears to have solidified Karzai's belief that the United States wants his ouster. Yet the clear message Kerry delivered privately seems to have made an impact.

"I'm sure President Karzai has heard this message [about corruption] loudly and clearly from the United States and the Europeans and, more importantly, from Afghans," said Said T. Jawad, the Afghan ambassador to Washington.

Jawad told me that if Karzai wins, he will lay out two compacts: one with the Afghan people, in which he will pledge to clean house, and one with the international community, in which he will detail his plans to improve governance.

As for U.S.-Afghan ties, the ambassador added, "If there is a relationship of trust on both sides, U.S. officials can convince the president. That's the kind of relationship we need, for your ambassador to sit down quietly." I presume this means no more shouting from Ambassador Holbrooke, please.

Skeptics may wonder whether Karzai can change or become less beholden to regional warlords if he is reelected. However, the Afghan leader is more likely to embrace those warlords if he fears U.S. officials are trying to sideline him or are planning a speedy exit from his country. No matter how frustrating the relationship with Karzai, it must be repaired.

That doesn't mean U.S. officials should refrain from candor. The message Kerry carried must be repeated over and over: Obama won't be able to maintain political support for a robust Afghan strategy unless Karzai shifts course. And if we leave, Karzai will be in big trouble.

However, to be believable, that message will need to be delivered from the top, not just by emissaries. "We need to get Karzai off the idea that [the United States] is going to oust him," said former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald Neumann. "President Obama should invite Karzai to Camp David for a couple of days. Karzai likes to walk, so walk with him. He needs to feel we're not out to get him."

A walk in the woods in which Obama listens closely, then lays out what Karzai must deliver, may be just what the U.S.-Afghan relationship needs.


Trudy Rubin can be contacted at trubin@phillynews.com.
Comments   
Posted 10:54 AM, 10/28/2009
lefty
Kerry's a lightweight who, like Carter, wants to remembered as a peace maker. His task was perfunctory and of little consequence. Karzai's ultimate decision will be based on his decision to allow a possible coalition government while he regroups to regain total power. "Sharing" isn't part of the vocabulary. Afghanistan is tribal and incapable of becoming a democracy. So, let's stop with the Kerry and his fuzzy, feel good mission. Since when do third bananas accomplish anything of substance? Its money and military backing which seal deals.
Posted 01:11 PM, 10/28/2009
murph82591
I agree that in order to be successful in afghanistan we need to be in good terms with karazi. I am for what trudy reported about kerry going over and talking with karazi about change that needs to take place and also about his brother. i do not agree that threatening will not help. Only to a certain point can you try and work with him. If he refuses to work with the united states there are precautions we may have to take. I agree also that if we leave karazi will be in big trouble. I think trudy did a good job reporting these events that have taken place
Comment removed.
Posted 04:35 PM, 10/28/2009
Palestra Jon
Yes, a man who put his life on the line commits treason by criticizing a cruel and unjust war that was not in the interest of America. And Carter is a lightweight, who just so happened to be right about everything he said in 1976. Had we listened to Carter instead of Reaganite morons like Lefty who only care about themselves, we would have energy independence today, Mideast peace, and best of all, no wars where we spend our prosperity and the lives of our soldiers. Can't the wingnut neocons just go away---haven't you guys done enough damage already?
Posted 06:00 PM, 10/28/2009
factsfirst
Kerry was a messenger and nothing more.Reagen is considered one of our greatest presidents, Carter obviously was a failure as a president and can not stop saying idiotic things since; the latest being that it is racism that drives citizens dislike of current White House policies.
Posted 06:51 PM, 10/28/2009
lefty
Palestra Jon>>> "(Carter)who just so happened to be right about everything he said in 1976." Are you for real? For 28 years, Carter and liberal revisionists have been at work to alter history. They FEAR that history will continue to reflect on his failed presidency. But let's get back to the gist of my original post: neither Carter or Kerry will impact the decision, since Karzai must agree with a run- off election in order to remain a major player. As for frick and frack, they remain as minor actors looking to have their names appear in the credits.
Posted 12:03 AM, 10/29/2009
John Gualt
Every day there is another thing comes up that Obama is doing to ruin this country. I have lived a long life, but have never seen that this country has being destroyed so fast. There is NO freedom anymore. How in the world can this have happened to this country - electing a man like this for President of such a wonderful country. How did it happen? Did we just sleep long enough to let it happen?
Posted 09:37 AM, 10/29/2009
ktmm013
I think it's a waste of time dealing with Karzai, it would be hard to take a stubborn president and walk with him and then give him a life changing speech, because that wont work. I believe that the US should not further get involved if Karzai wants to be resistant. What we do want to do is just leave them alone and if they ever needed our help in any way then we can impose our propositions. I hope Obama puts his foot down and says enough is enough or else im sure he will loose supporters and he already has.
Posted 01:31 PM, 10/29/2009
whachamacallit
I think this softer strategy is definitely worth a shot. The US has tried expressing disapproval loudly via mass media, and most of the western world has made it very clear that we do not believe that Karzi should be in power. He is still there. Unless there is a serious chance that the Afghan people will be able to run a completely clean election and pick a president that is more like someone the west would like, the US and Europe should focus on working with what we've got. This is probably the only way that Karzi will be willing to take western viewpoint and wishes into consideration.
Posted 06:42 PM, 10/29/2009
flotzydaclown
At first I was a little skeptical that all talks that involving Karzai and Kerry were in private, and just between them. However, at least there is some progress in talks and it seems to have been effective. I agree with Trudy that it is necissary that we repair the relationship with Karzai in order to begin to defeat the government problems and the terrorists. Also, all the Dcrats out there who are anti-war, then you should disagree with making peace. If you all want to leave so bad then why would you care what Karzai thinks.
Posted 08:47 PM, 10/29/2009
danceinside269
I completely agree with everything being done right now with Karzia. I think it's great that we aren't threatening him to make changes and that we're negotiating and tell him that we want to help. Its a lot easier to make changes when you aren't being forced to. If for some reason these attempts to repair relations with Karzai fail, then maybe we will have to turn to force to stop the taliban because if we leave afghanistan now, karzai will be in trouble and the taliban will have free game things need to be repaired and changes need to be made asap.
Posted 10:56 PM, 10/29/2009
TTF09
Kerry definitely took the right approach in this one...step by step. Like Trudy pointed out, if Kerry went over there demanding cooperation from Karzai like Biden and Holbrooke, then Karzai would continue to uphold his stubborn way of governance. The fact that he got Karzai to agree to run an election on Nov. 7 is a huge step. This will give the Afghan people a true voice, hopefully, which could lead to a better future for the country. As long as Karzai isn't bluffing about his desire to better his country, the US can keep using Kerry's step by step approach to make more advances in this issue.
Posted 10:59 PM, 10/29/2009
fishyjr92
I find it very interesting that Karzai suddenly becomes easy to work with once the doors are closed. Perhaps the fact that this whole situation has been so openly publicized is hurting the relations between the Afghan nation and the USA. I would also like to point out how so many influential people in the United States (Obama, Kerry, Clinton) are all working together for a joint cause. These were all people, who at one time, were fighting for the same position in government. When it really comes down to it, though, they will all come together to find solutions for the problems of their nation. This gives me great confidence in the direction of our country, especially concerning our Afghanistan relationship.
Posted 06:15 AM, 10/30/2009
sunnyflower
I don't know. I agree you need cooperation of a leader in this situation, but that usually also means you have cooperation of the people. Will that happen here? Exactly how popular are we or Karzai in Afghanistan? I can understand why we've had more success with Karzai in private meetings. He wants to be the leader of his country and not look like he's propped up by the U.S., which would go over very badly with his people. Anyway, since Karzai is the leader, we should repair our relationship with him. And a softer approach will be more effective. Threats make people paranoid and hostile, which is what seems to be happening here.
Posted 08:23 AM, 10/30/2009
phillies269
I agree with you Trudy as I feel that we have to be on good terms with Karzai in order to impose democracy and end the Taliban in Afghanistan. Furthermore, as you write, "U.S. frustration at Karzai's failure to rein in corruption, which feeds Taliban gains, has been building. It peaked over the blatant rigging of the presidential election in August." This quote illustrates the blatent ignorance Karzai has towards the situation, leaving us with no choice but to treaten rather than reason.
  • Top Jobs
  • Top Homes
  • Top Cars
 
SEARCH JOBS
Rittenhouse Square


$249,900
2101-17 CHESTNUT ST #1717
Center City


$2,099,000
1111 LOCUST ST #11C
SEARCH CARS

Buy Inquirer, Daily News & Philly merchandise here including:

 
Books
 
Movies
 
Page Reprints
 
Photo Licensing
 
Photos