Karzai’s Speech Reflects the Absence of a U.S. Grand Strategy for Central Asia
- Tuesday, April 6, 2010, 14:06
- Asia, Strategy, USA
- 3 comments
Upon reading the early reports of Afghan President Karzai’s recent speech criticizing foreign interference, and thus indirectly including U.S. interference, it would be natural to feel resentment given the material and human sacrifice the U.S. has made over the past +8 years in attempting to both destroy terrorist networks in Afghanistan and reestablish the national and economic foundation of the country. However, I believe the U.S. shouldn’t be surprised at this speech for two key reasons:
- The leaders of Central Asian countries have resorted to such speeches frequently since the collapse of Soviet hegemony in the region in 1991. It is typical of being an extremely weak state amongst a number of other volatile and weak states, a situation which has been leveraged over the years by multiple foreign powers to project power in Central Asia and, particularly, to gain advantage or control over Afghanistan’s affairs.
- The U.S., and its Western allies, lack a larger, encompassing strategy for the Central Asia region. If there existed a larger, guiding strategy for Central Asia, there would be multiple, inter-related pieces and activities in play in parallel with our efforts within Afghanistan to bolster the foundational state of its security, economy and political structure. The lack of this increasingly ensures that success of our efforts within Afghanistan are too closely hinged to the actions, including mistakes, of our own political, diplomatic and military leadership.
Although the U.S. remains the world’s primary superpower, the recent trip by President Obama to Afghanistan showed an eagerness to appear tough with President Karzai in relation to his crackdown on government corruption. But, in my opinion, we have no reason to appear tough with President Karzai if we are confident in our ability to project influence with his administration behind-the-scenes. Thus, I believe public pronouncements by the Obama Administration in regards to criticisms of Karzai’s lack of progress in tackling corruption is more for U.S. political theater than for the benefit of Afghanistan and by extension the Central Asia region.
I am by no means attempting to diminish the importance of rooting out and eliminating corruption in the Afghan government, but we must remember that this will be an ongoing process that can be improved over time and, given the horrid and decrepit state from which the country is being reborn, we must keep things in perspective. Our pressure on this front must occur at the national level in Afghanistan, but even more so at the local level where the political constitution of Afghani society is still most critical to address due to the country’s disintegration in the early 1990s.
As long as we continue to lean towards a ”policy-by-country” approach to the Central Asia region, Afghanistan will be in danger of falling back from the sometimes small and sometimes dramatic improvements it has made since 2001. This is because, during moments of political, economic and security distress, Afghanistan currently only has the U.S. to fall back on rather than a regional movement with momentum towards peaceful economic and diplomatic connectedness. It is this type of regional movement with which a grand strategy for Central Asia should be centered on and only part of which includes our current military, economic and diplomatic initiatives in Afghanistan.
For a sampling of mainstream commentary on Karzai’s speech, please see below:
Washington Post: Publicly criticizing the Afghan president hurts the U.S., by Michael O’Hanlon and Hassina Sherjan
Reuters Afghan Journal: Why Karzai decided to attack the West
MSNBC: Karzai’s speech befuddles Afghan officials, by John Yang
[Via Cross Journal Border]
About the Author
Shawn Beilfuss has written 32 stories on this site.
Regional contributor and editor. He is an expert in logistics and supply chain management(SCM). Currently He is living in Australia. Also he is a founder on Cross Border Journal, logistics and SCM online blog.
3 Comments on “Karzai’s Speech Reflects the Absence of a U.S. Grand Strategy for Central Asia”
Trackbacks
- Tweets that mention ThunderPost » Karzai’s Speech Reflects the Absence of a U.S. Grand Strategy for Central Asia -- Topsy.com
- Tweets that mention Karzai’s Speech Reflects the Absence of a U.S. Grand Strategy for Central Asia -- Topsy.com
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
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