A poll by Oxfam just completed in Afghanistan makes interesting reading. It suggests that ordinary Afghanis see the things that make their life miserable somewhat differently than the popular reports put out by diplomats and the international media . Based on a sample of 720 people, seven in ten (70%) individuals see unemployment and poverty as a major cause of the conflict in the country, while almost half (48%) point to the corruption and ineffectiveness of the Afghan government. Other factors that individuals identify as major drivers of the conflict are: the Taliban (36%); interference by other countries(25%); Al Qaeda(18%); the presence of international forces (18%); lack of support from the international community (17%); warlords (15%); and criminal groups (14%). The poll suggests what many have said for a long time – that the economy and jobs are the most important things that need addressing to win the confidence of the people, and that the presence of the international forces is not an important factor in alienating Afghanis from government. The real sources of alienation are poverty and the corruption of the Karzai government. For almost incomprehensible reasons the west, Canada included have virtually ignored these two important facts. Military spending has pushed economic development aid to the back burner, and the corruption and malfeasance of the Karzai government was ignored until the election finally forced it onto the attention of the western media.

Oxfam’s recommendations deserve the attention of the west. It says that “the government must take serious steps to establish the rule of law at all levels, crack down on corruption and end the culture of impunity and patronage, including through root and branch reform of the police and judiciary. There must be a commitment to investigate crimes and abuses associated with the conflict and pursue justice, acknowledgement, reconciliation and redress.” The west must “commit and deliver not just more aid, but more effective aid for humanitarian, reconstruction and development activities throughout the country; hold the Afghan government accountable and provide more support for it to tackle corruption and criminality; provide strong support for local peace building and conflict resolution initiatives, led by
civil society, and urge the Afghan government to pursue justice, reconciliation and redress for abuses caused during the past three decades of conflict”.

It also urges the establishment of a “regional peace process, including all regional powers, to end adverse interference in Afghanistan’s affairs and provide constructive support for its security and economic development”

It is impossible to say it any better. The west, including Canada, needs to listen and act. This does not mean the troops must leave. It does mean that the hot pursuit strategies of our troops in the south is largely irrelevant and silly. But it also means we should be debating what we should be doing differently, rather than simply over reaching each other in embracing 2011 when our troops are to leave. This is really in most ways a minor sideshow. The things that really matter – the things raised by Oxfam – are hardly ever discussed seriously in Canada. That is a shame.

The August presidential election should have been an important step in securing the future of Afghanistan. With increasing concerns about the Taliban’s success in spreading its insurgency, and doubts about whether the Afghan government is carrying its share of the burden, the election was important in building credibility at home and abroad.

Instead it has thrown wide open a window into the state of affairs in the country and the ability of the west and the US in particular to shepherd the country into a democratic recovery. There have been two big problems over the past few years: the virtual abandonment of the development effort as the US switched its focus to Iraq and the failure of Karzai to build an honest, effective government. To make any real progress on correcting for the first, the US needs to do something about the second.

No-one has ever doubted that Karzai came into power as a result of American policy. Nor is there any doubt that he understands that the US and the west have been essential to his remaining in power. Nevertheless through time he made the fateful decision to secure his position by reducing his dependence on the west and diversifying into old style politics better be-fitting the post Soviet period. He turned to corruption in pursuit of money needed to shore up his position. He worked out deals with old warlords who continue to maintain illegal, heavily armed rogue forces to rule over local populations – all men who could and should be before international tribunals for crimes against humanity. And instead of fighting the drug trade, he haas made alliances with the biggest of the drug dealers. And then he used this whole network of crooks, murderers and drug dealers to secure his re-election and to build the kind of support base he obviously wants over the next five years. The drug trade is to be given government protection and warlords are to be brought directly into his cabinet. The latter was publicly revealed in September by him when he signaled that three of the most notorious of them would be assigned cabinet positions directing three major government departments in his new Cabinet. On the same day Hillary Clinton and the British Foreign Secretary announced that Karzai was being accepted as the re-elected President. Fortunately the UN sponsored election oversight body, in the face of incontrovertible evidence and intense scrutiny, rejected a large number of fraudulent Karzai ballots, taking him below the 50% necessary, and forcing a run-off between him and second place Abdullah.

But Karzai was set once again to use his whole corrupt system, including control over the election machinery, to ensure a win in the second vote to take place November 7. Abdullah refused to go along with this arrangement, withdrew, and the Karzai controlled Election Commission announced Karzai as the winner. Within hours a relieved Clinton and other western leaders, including Harper, embraced Karzai rather than demanding independent management of the election. In so doing they revealed their unwillingness to stand up for a legitimately elected credible government and aligned themselves with a corrupt leader totally incapable of changing his ways. A few weeks ago the US and the other western countries said they had to have a reliable partner leading Afghanistan. They then did nothing to ensure this – even though an honest and capable alternative was prepared to run in a free and fair election and to let the people decide. That is all Abdullah asked. He did not get it.

The failure to ensure this happened is a colossal mistake. All that would have been required is the insistence of the west and Hillary Clinton in particular.

A momentous opportunity to put the Afghan effort back on track has been missed. There is no way that it can be put back on track now. The country has a government that is illegitimate in the eyes of Afghanis and westerners. It is also ineffective, corrupt and controlled by warlords and drug dealers. It will never work.

Hillary just faced her first big test and failed. For those who think she might have made a better President than Obama, the results are now in. Democrats made the right choice. Now they have to hope that their President takes over the file and comes up with a solution. Fast.

Hamid Karzai’s main contender in the Afghan election, Abdullah Abdullah, has announced that he will not be running in the election between he and Karzai scheduled for November 7. He has done so for good reason. Karzai has maintained an iron grip over the election machinery. He used that plus other corrupt practices too numerous to mention to steal a win in the first round. Abdullah made it a condition of running this time that the election must meet the “free and fair” standard that the UN and international community has set out for elections everywhere. So long as Karzai has his people running the Afghan Election Commission, that can never be the case.

What will happen next? Abdullah is clearly attempting to force the hand of Karzai, the UN, and the US. But he will not run if there is no change in the oversight and organization of the election. Time is very short. The UN and the US are highly compromised, having throughout the first election and the run up to it ignored Karzai’s blatant corruption. Karzai believes they have no choice but to back him again. They do have a choice – most in Afghanistan would welcome independent management of the election. Karzai knows he is actually very weak without the western support. He cannot govern without it.

Of course there are those who say that Afghanistan should be left to author its own future misfortune. This means leaving Karzai to run another corrupt election and weak and corrupt government dominated by warlords and drug dealers. The west played a very large part in getting Afghanistan into is current mess – we cannot morally now walk away. And many of the international security threats from al-Qaeda would re-appear if we walked away.

So what now? Its really simple. The west must insist that the election be postponed until an acceptable election commission is appointed. The power of appointment should be delegated to a respected neutral party, and the rules set out by a committee working under her in accordance with well established standards. Abdullah will run in an election organized this way. Karzai may still win, but he is more and more looking to be incapable of taking the country forward. The Afghan people must be given a fair chance to send him that message.

It is discouraging to encounter these seeming endless obstacles to making things work in Afghanistan. But we must demand more of our leaders in the west. I was sounding the alarm bell about the election in July and August. So were other observers. But the western diplomatic community continued what has become a pattern there. They stuck with old discredited leader (remember Musharaff in Pakistan) until it is too late. The professional diplomats – conservative, closed minded, and dismissive of anyone not in their insular little circles – spent their time fending off critics and defending the indefensible. They get plenty of help from academics and journalists. Meanwhile the chance to do something to avert a crisis passes, at which time they hunker in and profess defeat by circumstances.

Let’s hope they are ready this time to draw a line in the sand with Karzai. There isn’t much time left.