Afghanistan: Karzai Out-manoeuvres the United States

Somewhere there are cats marvelling at the lives of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai.

At the start of this year, Obama Administration were considering how to oust Karzai from office. Supporting local authorities, the US blocked the President's attempt to hold elections in April and, through American media, they put forth political alternatives. Only last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a public warning to Karzai, “We have made it very clear that we expect changes. We expect accountability, and we’re going to demand it.”

In the last 72 hours, however, Karzai has shown the political skills and tenacity that prompted the US to support him as the first post-Taliban leader in 2001. He has met Washington's challenge by ensuring --- barring a political catastrophe, coup, or assassination --- that he will be returned as Afghanistan's President in August elections.

The first sign of Karzai's victory came Saturday when the Governor of Nangarhar Province, Gul Agha Shirzai, announced that he was withdrawing his Presidential bid. Shirzai was being played up as a strong contender, and only last Friday, Vice President Ahmed Zia Masood --- who had already said he would not run with Karzai --- would be Mr. Shirzai’s running mate. However, after a four-hour meeting with Karzai on Friday night, Shirzai said he was withdrawing. The U-turn took his campaign staff by surprise; his spokesman said, “Shirzai did not consult with his friends in this decision."

Shirzai was seen by some Washington officials as a preferable alternative to Karzai. Six weeks ago, The Wall Street Journal had a fawning profile of the Governor. Although he was "a semiliterate former warlord" with "an autocratic style, a reputation for doling out government contracts to family and friends, and a personal fortune allegedly amassed via corruption and the opium trade"....

....Many in Afghanistan think he might also be the country's best hope for stability. As the head of one of the country's most peaceful provinces, Mr. Shirzai has ensured that roads get built, opium poppies are plowed under, and the Taliban are held at bay.

With Shirzai removed as a contender, Karzai could then make his next move. As he registered as a candidate on Monday, he announced that former Defence Minister Mohammad Fahim as one of his two Vice-Presidential candidates.

Fahim, Karzai's Vice-President from 2001 to 2004, has been criticised as a "warlord" responsible for the killing of thousands in Afghanistan's civil war of the 1990 and for involvment in crime and drug trafficking. However, he brings Karzai support from former mujihadeen. Karzai's second Vice-Presidential candidate, Muhammad Karim Khalili, is a former mujihadeen commander and a leader of Afghanistan's Shi'a.

How secure is Karzai, despite the continued American pressure? An article in The Washington Post on Sunday offered the answer: "Karzai's Would-Be Competition in Disarray". Former interior minister Ali Jalali waved the white flag:

We tried to put together a team with a national agenda, but so far we have failed. As a result, Karzai is growing stronger by the hour. The problem is ego. Everyone thinks he has the best chance of winning, so no one is willing to compromise.

The newspaper identified three failed or failing alternatives: Shirzai, former finance minister Ashraf Ghani, who was being pushed by Washington but made the mistake of spending too much time in the US, and --- almost bizarrely --- long-time US Government official Zalmay Khalilzad, who, despite teasing signals, is unlikely to give up American citizenship and return to Afghanistan.

Another Afghan analyst, Haroun Mir, has given up on prospects of an immediate change to look at future battles:

Karzai is in a very strong position now, but even if he is reelected, Afghanistan will badly need better governance and better leadership. We need to look beyond who wins the elections. I am much more worried about the future of Afghan institutions and democracy.

Fair enough. But when Karzai visits Washington, his smile will be genuine. The Obama Administration officials with whom he will be chatting tried to pull the strings in Kabul, and they snapped. The "puppet" has escaped his masters.

Iran: Roxana Saberi Appeal to Be Heard Next Week?

The case of Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi, jailed in Iran for eight years on charges of espionage, may be moving to a legal and diplomatic conclusion. Iranian judiciary spokesman Alireza Jamshidi said today, "The case has gone to ... the appeal court and it is being studied there. There has been a date set for next week (for the court session)."

The announcement comes days after widespread international attention to and criticism of Iran's execution of Delara Darabi on Saturday. Darabi was 17 when she killed her father's cousin more than five years ago.

Video: Admiral Mullen Briefing on Pakistan-Afghanistan (4 May)

Monday's showpiece in the ongoing drama of US policy towards Pakistan and Afghanistan was a 20-minute press briefing by Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

VIDEO (PART 1 OF 2)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8apwmV_03I[/youtube]

Mullen's immediate purpose was to push both countries as the priority for American foreign and military policy: while the US "remain committed to the mission we've been given in Iraq", it had now been overtaken by crises which left him "gravely concerned": "This isn't about can-do anymore, this is about must-do."

While the admiral referred to both countries in his opening statements, almost all the discussion with the press was about Pakistan (a fact missed by some lazy journalism at both CNN and The Washington Post). Mullen restated the recent Washington line that it was "encouraged" by the Pakistani military operation against insurgents although there is "more that must be done", and stayed out of any manoeuvres over Pakistan's political leadership.

Meanwhile, State Department spokesman Robert Wood restated Hillary Clinton's warning of the "existential threat" posed by extremists in Pakistan. Attention today moves to Capitol Hill, where US envoy Richard Holbrooke is speaking in a Congressional hearing on the US-Pakistan relationship. And there's the small matter of the arrival of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Washington for talks.

VIDEO (PART 2 OF 2)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOkYtt70NEA[/youtube]

Meanwhile in Iraq: Iran Looks for a Border Settlement

Iran Review has posted an intriguing article, translated from the Iranian newspaper Tabnak, by Mirmehrdad Mirsanjanri on "Undecided Fate of Iran’s Longest Border". As Iran pursues its own political reconciliation with a Baghdad asserting its independence from US oversight, the thorough review has a clear objective:

Implementation of the 1975 Algiers Accord and precise demarcation of joint borders 20 years after the Iraqi war against Iran (1980-88) will help forge a formal and lasting peace between the two neighboring countries and lead to the Iranian people’s trust in the Iraqi government’s goodwill.

Undecided Fate of Iran’s Longest Border

Iran’s 1485-km border with Iraq is the longest land border in the country. At the same time it has been one of the most disputed borders between Iranian and Ottoman governments over the past 100 years from the Safavid era onwards.

Following disintegration of the Ottoman Empire in 1920 and creation of a state called Iraq, the dispute continued under all the Iraqi governments from the monarchy to the republican rule of Abdul Ghasem and after him under the Baathist rule. The 1975 Algiers Accord which was inked between Iran and Iraq after lengthy talks between leaders of the countries put an end to the border dispute forever. The agreement specified the land borders with slight changes in favor of Iraq and the Arvand River (Shatt al-Arab) was divided between the two countries through the Thalweg line.

It is to be noted that Iran’s western borders are the only borders shaped without intervention of British colonialism and Russia. The Russians took Aran and Shervan (present day Azerbaijan Republic) through the Golestan Agreement in 1813. They also separated Armenia and Nakhichevan from Iran through the Turkmanchai Accord 15 years later, namely in 1828. Britain too took Herat and Afghanistan away from Iran by imposing the 1850 Agreement. They also separated a major part of Baluchestan from Iran in 1905 and annexed it to their East India Empire.

Contemplation on the situation of Iran’s borders with Iraq located in the Kurdish regions in the north and Arab populated regions in the south makes implementation of the 1975 border agreement inevitable. The successor Iraqi government’s refusal to fulfill its commitment to the accord has received little attention due to the brotherly aids of Iran to the Iraqi people. Failure in border demarcation has caused the Iraqi troops and coalition forces stationed in Iraq to penetrate 500m to 1 km into the Iranian borders on some occasions in open violation of IRI’s territorial integrity.

In the meantime, Iraqi troops maintain a presence in the Iranian section of Arvand River (Shatt al-Arab) every now and then claiming to be in the Iraqi waters. To this we must add repeated violations by Iraqi thugs of Iranian waterway in Arvand River. Under the critical conditions in the region where foreigners intend to harm ethnic solidarity of Iranian tribes it is imperative for the Iranian government to make the Iraqi side respect the 1975 Algiers Accord.

Implementation of the 1975 Algiers Accord and precise demarcation of joint borders 20 years after the Iraqi war against Iran (1980-88) will help forge a formal and lasting peace between the two neighboring countries and lead to the Iranian people’s trust in the Iraqi government’s goodwill.

Meantime, establishment of security in the western borders of the country in addition to thwarting global threats against Iran’s territorial integrity will result in an economic boost for the people of these regions. Let’s not forget that to safeguard every inch of Iran’s land and water borders, the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iranian youth has been shed. Therefore, the Iranian nation will accept no negligence towards practical execution of the 1975 Algiers Accord.

Before waging his war against Iran in 1980, former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein appeared before TV and news media and impudently tore up the 1975 Algiers Accord on the pretext that Iraq’s rights had been overlooked in the international agreement.

And now six years into the fall of Saddam Hussein, the successor Iraqi government has not only failed to show its practical commitment to the agreement and pay war reparations to Iran but we hear Iraqi officials speaking about the need to revise the agreement and urging Tehran to forego the war reparations Baghdad must pay after it was identified by the UN as the aggressor party in the war.

A prominent Iraqi official said in an interview with Al-Arabiya TV network that he had explicitly asked Tehran to skip the war reparations. He also said those who are seeking war reparations are agents of Israel!

However, I would like to drawn the attention of the Iraqi officials to the following points:

1. The 1975 Algiers Accord is a formal and international agreement prepared on the basis of international law; it can neither be abrogated unilaterally nor can it be altered or revised with the change of governments.

2. The war reparations Iraq must pay to Iran do not belong to certain individuals or groups so they would have the right to forgo them. The money rather belongs to each and every Iranian who has tolerated the sufferings of the war with their flesh and blood. In the Iraqi imposed war which is known as the longest classic war in the 20th century, about one million Iranians were martyred, injured, maimed or suffered chemical wounds. The number of those suffering from the mental and psychological impacts of the war is much higher. Moreover, many Iranian families are still looking for their beloved ones who are missing in action. Therefore, it is the Iranian nation who has a right to make a decision on how to deal with the war reparation issue.

3. The refusal by the Iraqi establishment to pay war reparations to Iran is not called courage. Courage means for the Iraqi government to formally apologize to Iranians and announce its readiness to pay the war reparations. On the other hand, real courage by the Iraqi government would be in its firm decision to oust the American and British troops from its land.

4. Undoubtedly for the countries present in Iraq which have drawn up long term plans to plunder Iraq’s abundant wealth the payment of war reparations would be a bitter pill to swallow. By resorting to various schemes, including pressuring the Iraqi officials who have close ties with Iran, these countries are trying to make the Iranian government give up the rights of the present and future generations.

5. The Iraqi war against Iran, according to estimates of experts, caused a delay of 50 years in Iran’s economic and social development. Therefore, the war reparation of 1000 billion dollars would make up only for part of the damage the Iranian people have suffered and will suffer in the future.

6. Leveling “Israeli agents” charges against advocates of the Iranian people’s rights is just a ploy to deceive the people and would have no result for the Iraqi government but to provoke the pan-Arab sentiments of Arabs.

7. While reparations of the short war (Persian Gulf War) amounting to billions is being regularly paid by Iraq to other parties and considering that Iraq is in possession of the largest oil reserves (approx. 200 billion barrels), the Iraqi officials’ refusal to pay war reparations to Iran is not acceptable nor can it be justified in any way.

8. There is no doubt that there are numerous cultural and historical commonalties between Iranians and Iraqi Shias, but what can really establish peace between the two countries after 20 years is for the Iraqi government to respect the UN Security Council Resolution 598, pay war reparations as the aggressor party, and show practical respect for the 1975 Algiers Accord.

9. According to the international law, the change of governments would not clear their successors of respecting the commitments of their predecessors. The Japanese government had to apologize to the Korean people 40 years after committing crimes against them. After the lapse of 60 years since the World War II and despite the coming to power of many governments, the German government is still paying compensation to the war victims.

10. After the goodwill of the Iraqi side in execution of the 1975 Algiers Accord is proved and after Baghdad officially apologizes to the Iranian nation and declares its readiness to pay war reparations, the Iranians could also prove their goodwill through some proposals on mechanisms of payment of war reparations. This could include payment on long term installments; exclusive and long term development by Iran of Iraq’s rich oilfields; or contributions by the countries which aided Iraq in its war against Iran to pay the reparations.

Iraq: The "Semi-Peace" Gets More Violent, the US Becomes Less Relevant

On Friday the Associated Press put the news, "April deadliest month for US in Iraq in 7 months", in numbers: 18 American troops died, compared to nine in March; 13 were killed in combat, compared to four the previous month.

Those numbers, however, didn't begin to tell the story. One might note, for example, that it's not just (or even primarily) an American issue: 371 Iraqs and 80 Iranian pilgrims were killed in violence, mainly in bombings, during the month, an increase from 335 Iraqis in March, 288 in February, and 242 in January. (The figures are certainly underestimates, given that other deaths go unreported.)

One could ponder not only the contest to control cities like Kirkuk, where Kurdish and Arab factions are in a political and paramilitary battle, and Mosul, where the US military (misleadingly) reduces the insurgent violence to "Al Qa'eda in Iraq". But you can add a new feature: members of the Awakening Councils, the Sunni militias backed by the US from 2006, are rejoining the insurgency after they were not allowed into Iraqi security forces by the Al-Maliki Government.

And then you might offer a conclusion to unsettle both "common wisdom" and American nerves: in this escalation of tension, the US is increasingly marginal.

That's not just in media coverage, although the treatment of recent deaths is illuminating: when three US troops were killed on Thursday in Anbar province, The Washington Post didn't even bother to print the news. The emerging signs of irrelancy are coming on the political front. As an analysis from Middle East Report Onlineon the Awakening Councils summarises, "The ability of the United States and its military forces to affect the trajectory of political accommodation and reconciliation has diminished."

An article in The New York Times by Sam Dagher on 25 April revealed how Al-Maliki "resists pleas by US to placate Ba'ath Party". Beyond that sensational headline was the most detailed and most serious account of how the Shia-led Iraqi Government was balking at any political reconciliation with military officials from the Saddam Hussein era. It is only a short step, however, from a refusal to accept  former Ba'athists to a holdout against any co-operation with local Sunni tribes and leadership.

Meanwhile, the manoeuvres for influence mean that former Shi'a foes of the US have become more than acceptable on the Iraqi and even international stage. Moqtada Sadr, the cleric who Washington tried to arrest and then kill in 2004 after he built up a political party and militia, was in Turkey last week meeting Prime Minister Reccip Tayip Erodgan and President Abdullah Gul as well as other leading Iraqi politicians. Sadr's trip points to his emphasis on political rather than paramilitary moves to power and also the place of other countries in that campaign: he ventured to Ankara after discussions in Tehran.

And back in Baghdad, the al-Maliki Government is not only talking tough against internal rivals but even against its American allies. The Prime Minister's spokesman wrote on Sunday, "The Iraqi government is committed to the agreed-upon withdrawal dates, whether it's the June 30 withdrawal of the U.S. troops from all cities and towns or the complete withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011."

Of course, no one in the Obama Administration is going to say that the upsurge in violence and the political discussions point to a Washington which is losing its ability to re-shape a "proper" Iraq. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates insisted on CNN this week, "Nothing ever gets done without American leadership, at the end of the day."

Indeed, April's instability points to a likely irony. Even though it indicates that the US military are bystanders and even "collateral damage", the surge in violence will probably be used by American commanders to postpone a withdrawal from some Iraqi cities (one which Al-Maliki, as he bolsters his position, will probably accept in Mosul. Administration officials will spin the tale that it's a few recalcitrant outsiders who are hindering progress and peace, as in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent identification of "rejectionists".

No matter. The paradox of importance is that, as the Al-Maliki Government --- distrusted but ultimately supported by Washington --- finally established its strength in spring 2008, it did not need to fall back on US forces. That was confirmed in the Government's ultimately successful campaign to get a US commitment to withdrawal under the Status of Forces Agreement. Even though some military aspects of that pullout may be delayed, it's the political withdrawal of the US that is significant.

So the pendulum swings. The US raises a heavier hand in its attempt to re-shape a Government in Islamabad but has no fist to shake in Baghdad. Instead, Nouri al-Maliki was shaking hands in London this week --- after all, investment in Iraq (an investment which is desperately needed as oil revenues decline) doesn't have to come from Washington.