U.S. Struggles to Find Envoy, Hindering Effort to Stabilize Afghanistan

By Michael Abramowitz and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 26, 2008; A13

The White House has been pushing since early fall to install a powerful new foreign envoy to oversee international reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. Last month it looked as though it had finally found its man: After a meeting in Kuwait, Hamid Karzai indicated he was ready to accept prominent British politician Paddy Ashdown for the assignment.

Less than two weeks later, the appointment collapsed after Karzai changed his mind -- the latest sign of tensions between the courtly Afghan president and the Western powers that have been seeking for nearly seven years to stabilize a country that was the breeding ground for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

U.S. officials have done little to disguise their displeasure with the recent turn of events, which has not only left them without a candidate but also imperiled their strategy of giving a single international envoy a robust mandate for Afghanistan. Over weeks of negotiations, the job has been whittled down from a statesman of stature who would influence decisions by NATO, the European Union and the United Nations to a more traditional role as envoy of the U.N. secretary general, according to officials familiar with the discussions.

"There's no ready, obvious replacement," said one senior U.S. official who is not authorized to speak publicly. "We thought [Ashdown] was best qualified, given his credentials and his experience and his ability to command attention, especially in European capitals."

Talking with reporters last week, Richard Boucher, assistant secretary of state for South Asia, disputed the suggestion that the rejection of Ashdown meant that Karzai was obstructing progress.

"That is our partner and that's who we will work with, because that's who the people of Afghanistan chose," he said. "I think it's very clear that from our discussions with the Afghan government, even since Paddy Ashdown felt he had to withdraw his candidacy, that they, too, want to see better coordination, want to see strong international coordination."

U.S. and U.N. officials said they are still looking for an envoy. Among those said to be under consideration are Kai Eide, a senior Norwegian official with experience in the U.N. bureaucracy; Jan Kubis, the Slovak foreign minister; Hikmat Chetin, a senior Turkish diplomat with experience in Afghanistan; and Joschka Fischer, a former German foreign minister. President Bush discussed the search recently with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who will make the final appointment.

Still, Bush administration officials acknowledge that the episode has highlighted the inability of the United States and its allies to organize civilian reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, the focus of recent criticism by diplomats and a flurry of new reports.

Since the Taliban fell in 2001, the international community has provided about $15 billion to rebuild Afghanistan. But U.S. officials and outside experts say that there has been little coordination among the dozens of countries and international organizations helping to build roads and bridges, create a new police and justice system, and deal with narcotics production.

"There is a very clear need for a joining of the international military strategy with the international civilian strategy," said Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, who helped recruit Ashdown. "Countries that are extending assistance to Afghanistan are not extending assistance in a central, organized way right now."

The troubles with reconstruction are a companion to the more publicized military difficulties NATO is having in Afghanistan, where U.S. officials -- most prominently Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates -- have complained that some allies are unwilling to participate in the most violent fight against the Taliban. But many officials regard the civilian effort as perhaps even more critical to controlling Afghanistan's insurgency.

Asked recently to assess U.S. progress, a top U.S. official handling Afghanistan said: "Tactically on the security front, I would say we are winning."

"The challenge with Afghanistan is that's not good enough," added the official, who insisted on anonymity to speak more freely. "And it is on some of the other dimensions of the mission where we are not doing as well as we need to be. And mostly those have to do with the non-military . . . having to do with governance, economic development, reconstruction."

Norway first suggested a super-envoy in the fall of 2006, but it was not until last summer, as reports mounted of problems in Afghanistan, that U.S. officials began warming to the idea.

U.S. officials focused on Ashdown, a former leader of the Liberal Democrats in Britain who impressed them with his service as the U.N. high representative in Bosnia from 2002 to 2006. The British quickly agreed.

But early on, U.N., U.S. and Afghan officials argued about how powerful the job should be. Sources said Zalmay Khalilzad, who is the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and is close to Karzai, detected reservations among Afghan senior officials -- but those reservations appeared to dissipate after the Afghan president met with Ashdown in Kuwait in January.

Ban then met with Ashdown in Madrid to seal the deal. But when Karzai returned to Kabul, he received criticism from members of his cabinet, while the media portrayed Ashdown as a potential pro-consul, akin to past British colonial rulers. Karzai, meanwhile, believed that Ashdown had planted newspaper stories in Britain suggesting that Karzai was a weak Pashtun leader atop a Tajik government, a remark Karzai viewed as "fanning ethnic tensions," said a senior U.S. official.

Said T. Jawad, Afghanistan's ambassador to the United States, suggested that there were worries about the powerful role Ashdown had played in the Balkans. "Based on his past experience in the Balkans, the Afghan cabinet and other officials raised some concerns," Jawad said. "President Karzai decided his role wouldn't be constructive."

By the time Karzai met with Ban and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in late January, the Afghan leader had soured on the choice. Ban had gone into the meeting expecting to announce Ashdown's appointment; instead, Ashdown soon issued a statement withdrawing from consideration.

It was not the first time in recent months that Karzai has clashed with his Western patrons. He has battled the United States over opium-reduction strategies, and in December he expelled two senior European officials for holding unauthorized talks with the Taliban.

Some analysts saw the Bush administration's inability to secure Ashdown's appointment as a serious setback. "The rejection of Ashdown by Karzai undermines the ability of the Afghan government to be moving more forcefully in the right direction," said Mark Schneider, senior vice president of the International Crisis Group, which has been critical of the reconstruction efforts. "When Karzai said he didn't want it, the U.S. didn't stick to its guns."

Senior administration officials say that there is no major rift and that Karzai, who has a monthly videoconference with Bush, is entitled to veto power over a position that could vastly influence his country.

Seth Jones, an Afghanistan expert with the Rand Corp., said Karzai, who is up for reelection next year, is reluctant to be identified too closely with the United States. "I don't think over the long term it's a significant blow," he said. But the failure to install Ashdown, he added, shows Karzai's sensitivity "to not be seen as being pushed around by the international community."

British anti-drug effort a failure: Afghan official

Sun Sep 2, 2007 7:36AM EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - British efforts to combat opium production in southern Afghanistan have completely failed, Afghanistan's first vice-president said on Sunday, calling for tougher measures, including aerial spraying.

Ahmad Zia Masood said Britain and the United States had spent hundreds of millions of dollars to combat growing of opium poppies used to make heroin.

Yet United Nations' figures released last week showed opium production rose by 34 percent this year, he said.

"It is now clear that your policy in the south of our country has completely failed," he wrote in an article in Britain's Sunday Telegraph newspaper.

"In Helmand (in southern Afghanistan), where the British are based, poppies have spread like a cancer," he said. "The province now produces half of Afghanistan's opium."

The main reason the policy had failed was insecurity, he said. "Opium cultivation has continued due to the pressure exerted by the Taliban, who 'tax' every aspect of the poppy crop," he added.

Counter-narcotics policy has been "much too soft", Masood said. "The time has come for us to adopt a more forceful approach. We must switch from ground-based eradication to aerial spraying," he said.

Bringing development and jobs to Afghan people was important, but large sums spent on irrigation projects and road-building had simply made it easier for farmers to grow and transport opium, he said.

Another problem was that counter-narcotics operations were not in Afghan hands, he said. "Poppy cultivation is an Afghan problem and it needs an Afghan solution," he said.

Masood acknowledged there was deep-rooted corruption in Afghan state institutions engaged in combating narcotics and terrorism. "We must wipe out this plague," he said.

Afghanistan's opium crop has risen every year since U.S.-led and Afghan forces toppled the Taliban government in 2001, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime said on Monday.

Afghanistan produced 93 percent of the world's opium this year and the area of the country used to grow poppies rose by 17 percent, it said.

Asked about Masood's comments, Britain's Foreign Office said it had nothing to add to a statement released in response to the U.N. report last week.

That statement said the increase in opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan was a "real cause for concern" and the figures for Helmand "particularly disappointing".

But it said there were signs of progress. In parts of the north and centre, drug cultivation was coming down or stabilizing and the number of poppy-free provinces had increased from six to 13. "Ridding Afghanistan of this curse will take a generation, perhaps more," the Foreign Office said.

Bush Looks to Assure, Yet Prod, Karzai

By Ben Feller
Associated Press
Monday, August 6, 2007; A04

Afghan President Hamid Karzai arrived at Camp David yesterday, beginning a two-day visit in which the two men were to discuss the deteriorating security and sporadic rule of law in Afghanistan.

Bush is looking to bolster Karzai but also to prod his government to exert and extend its authority. Karzai faces a multitude of troubles at home -- a hostage crisis, civilian killings, drug trafficking and a resurgent Taliban -- which are likely to be discussed with Bush.

Karzai was greeted by Bush and first lady Laura Bush, and chatted briefly with a few of Bush's top aides, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

Afghanistan's fragility remains of paramount concern to the United States.

"Karzai wants to shore up his ties in Washington," said Teresita C. Schaffer, a former top State Department official for South Asia. "And I think the U.S. government very much wants to get a stronger sense of how we can develop a common political strategy."

Despite its progress since U.S.-led forces toppled the militant Taliban regime in 2001, Afghanistan is still dominated by poverty and lawlessness. Stability has been hindered by the lack of government order, particularly in the southern part of the country.

As U.S. and NATO forces target Taliban insurgents, the civilian deaths associated with the attacks have enraged the Afghan population and eroded Karzai's authority. He has repeatedly asked military commanders for more caution and lashed out at foreign forces aiding his nation.

Karzai is likely to seek some reassurance from Bush that "whatever the U.S. is doing is going to result in fewer civilians killed," said Schaffer, now the director of the South Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Militants often wear civilian dress and seek shelter in villagers' homes, making it hard to differentiate the enemy from the innocent. Bush "is absolutely satisfied" that the U.S. military is doing all it can to avoid civilian casualties, spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

On another front, Afghanistan now accounts for 95 percent of the world's production of poppies used to make heroin. Profits from the drug trade are aiding the Taliban.

Overshadowing the Bush-Karzai meeting is the fate of 21 South Korean volunteers who were abducted by the Taliban on July 19 and are now believed to be in central Afghanistan. The captors took a total of 23 people hostage and have killed two of them.

The Taliban is seeking the release of prisoners; the Afghan government has refused -- and the United States adamantly opposes -- conceding to such demands. The crisis has put considerable pressure on Karzai and raised more doubts about his ability to enforce the rule of law.

Bush and Karzai are also likely to discuss Afghanistan's distrustful relationship with neighboring Pakistan. Karzai said the flow of foreign fighters from Pakistan into his country is a concern he will address soon with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

The two are expected to meet soon as part of a gathering of tribal elders in Kabul.

Afghan President, Besieged by Crises, To Meet With Bush

By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, August 4, 2007; A10

KABUL, Aug. 3 -- As Afghan President Hamid Karzai prepares for a two-day meeting with President Bush at Camp David starting Sunday, his government is confronting contradictory pressures at home and abroad over how to secure the release of 21 surviving South Korean hostages, combat the aggressive Taliban insurgency and rein in Afghanistan's flourishing opium poppy trade.

Bush administration officials have described the meeting as a private "strategy session" between partners and a chance to reiterate unwavering U.S. support for Karzai's beleaguered government. But here, analysts and politicians say that in return for providing $10 billion in aid and more than 20,000 troops, U.S. officials may be pushing Karzai to take or accept harsh actions that many Afghans adamantly oppose.

The most urgent issue is what to do about the Taliban, the once-defeated radical Islamic militia that has roared back to life as a power-hungry, media-savvy guerrilla force. It is taking ever more audacious actions -- such as kidnapping 23 Korean church volunteers on a bus July 19 -- while moving ever closer to this tense capital in its campaign to drive out foreign troops and restore strict Islamic rule.

Karzai, a genial diplomat from a country of tribal traders, has always preferred to negotiate his way out of problems. He has repeatedly called on Taliban fighters to reconcile with his government, and he is attempting to solve the current hostage crisis through tribal mediation. Many Afghans, exhausted by years of conflict and angry at repeated civilian casualties during foreign strikes against the Taliban, support a negotiated peace with insurgents.

But U.S. officials have rejected this approach, especially in hostage situations. Administration spokesmen say pressure must be applied on the Taliban to secure the Koreans' freedom, including the possible use of force. Two hostages have been killed, and Taliban officials are demanding the withdrawal of 210 South Korean troops and the release of a group of imprisoned insurgents in exchange for the hostages' lives.

"It is really difficult to know what to do," said Nader Nadery, president of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. "The government can't give in to the Taliban's demands, or they will be encouraged to repeat the same terrorist actions. But the Taliban are already winning the psychological war, delaying the hostage situation to gain time and public attention."

Although the insurgents are not strong enough to defeat pro-government forces, he said, "their psychological presence is everywhere. With every incident, somehow they win."

In recent months, the Taliban has made its presence felt in widening swaths of territory, moving farther out of its traditional base in the south and into provinces ringing the capital. Taliban fighters have seized the Koreans and executed local judges in Ghazni province, killed schoolgirls in Logar province and abducted two German engineers in Wardak province, killing one.

Officials are especially alarmed by the growing insurgent presence in Wardak, a poor region of fields and orchards just southwest of Kabul. As recently as April, there was no sign of insurgents in the region. Now, officials said, Taliban fighters hold armed meetings in village mosques and send threatening letters that force girls' schools to shut down.

Many people in Wardak blame the Karzai government for multiple failures that have spawned the Taliban revival. They said that promised roads and schools were never built, local authorities are corrupt and security is abysmal, with as few as four poorly trained policemen per district.

"The government has lost the confidence of our people, and the Taliban are getting more powerful," said Roshanak Wardak, a rural obstetrician and member of parliament from Wardak. "A lot of our boys have no jobs or education. The Taliban pay them and tell them the Americans have come to erase Islam from their country. I am very much worried," she added. "If the Taliban get power again in our province, it is only one leap to the capital."

U.S. diplomats and analysts repeatedly have expressed concern, saying that the Karzai government needs a stronger presence outside Kabul, providing better services and security in poor areas that are vulnerable to Taliban blandishments. State Department officials said Karzai and Bush will discuss the need to assert central authority in rural areas.

Much of the U.S. military's emphasis here, however, remains on killing or capturing insurgents, and American military officials are skeptical of efforts to negotiate with the Taliban. But energetic pursuit of insurgents has produced another problem -- a mounting toll of civilian casualties, mostly in bombing raids. The deaths have inflamed public opinion, turned many Afghans against the foreign forces and further strained Karzai's credibility.

"Sooner or later, every liberating force becomes an occupying force," said one Western analyst here. "A majority of Afghans were glad to see the coalition arrive in 2001, and most of them still are, but collateral damage and cultural insensitivity are key issues here. Even if the Taliban are using civilians as human shields, in the court of public opinion it is still the foreign forces that killed them."

The third issue in which Karzai faces contradictory pressures is how to stop the spread of opium poppy cultivation and trafficking. The crop has grown to record levels since the overthrow of the Taliban, which had banned it in 2000. The drug trade has become economically intertwined with the revived insurgency.

The Bush administration, which largely ignored Afghanistan's poppy problem for several years while concentrating on hunting down Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters, is now extremely worried about the trade's role in shoring up the new Taliban. Richard A. Boucher, the senior State Department official for South Asia, said this week that "the tie between insecurity and poppy production is more and more clear," as are the links between the drug crop and the Taliban insurgency.

But U.S. and Afghan officials differ on the cure. The United States endorses aerial crop spraying and aggressive eradication along with alternative agricultural programs and better law enforcement. But Karzai has rejected the harsher eradication methods in the face of threatened revolts by farmers and public opposition.

"If Karzai comes under a lot of pressure to spray, it would be a big mistake," said Paul Fishstein, executive director of the nonprofit Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit here. "It would provide the Taliban with a huge propaganda gift. It would be perceived by farmers as a hostile act and it would further alienate them from the government. It might work as a way to destroy a crop, but if you really want to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan, it would have the opposite effect."

Afghans Report 133 Civilians Dead In Recent Airstrikes

Associated Press
Sunday, July 8, 2007; A15

KABUL, July 7 -- Afghan elders said Saturday that 108 civilians were killed this week in a bombing campaign in western Afghanistan, and villagers in the northeast said 25 Afghans died in airstrikes.

U.S. and NATO leaders, however, said they had no information to substantiate the allegations.

Government officials who reported the deaths Saturday also could not confirm the claims, which came from dangerous and remote regions inaccessible to journalists and other independent researchers.

"It is a very problematic information environment," said Adrian Edwards, the U.N. spokesman in Afghanistan.

Edwards said the reliability of government reports is crucial to addressing the very real problem of civilian casualties. The United Nations also has not been able to confirm the most recent casualty claims.

Civilian deaths are a recurring problem that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly deplored. The latest reports come at a time of increasing concern in European capitals over Afghan casualties, an issue that threatens to derail the NATO mission here.

In Farah province in western Afghanistan, Abdul Qadir Daqeq, chief of the provincial council, said elders from the Bala Baluk district delivered a letter to his office saying that 108 civilians, including women and children, were killed in airstrikes Thursday and Friday. Thirty-three insurgents were also reported killed. Eleven policemen were found beheaded on the battlefield.

"The area is under the control of the enemy," Daqeq said. "No one can go to Bala Baluk to find out the exact number of casualties. I cannot go there, human rights officers can't go there, government officials can't go there."

Maj. John Thomas, a NATO spokesman, said that airstrikes were called in to assist Afghan forces in Farah but that officials had "no information" to support the civilian casualty claims. He said there was a "significant effort" to move civilians out of the area before the fighting.

In the northeast, in Konar province, Gov. Shelzai Dedar said villagers told him that 25 civilians had been killed during fighting over the last several days. Two NATO soldiers and two Afghan soldiers were also killed in the fighting, they said. Dedar said 20 insurgents were killed; the Ministry of Defense said 37 were.