The Afghan peoples most dangerous foe is not the Taliban. Its not Pakistan or al-Qaida. No, its their president, Hamid Karzai.
By JOEL BRINKLEY
Tribune Content Agency
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry flew to Kabul earlier this month and spent more than 24 hours with Karzai, trying to work out an agreement that would allow a modest contingent of U.S. troops to remain in the country after 2014, to continue protecting Afghans from their enemies.
The two men said they came to agreement on several important issues. But the pact remains hung up on one key point: Karzais insistence that American servicemen accused of a crime be tried in Afghan courts. Kerry made it clear the United States will not accept that as it shouldnt.
Karzai already knew that. After all, the long-term military-assistance deal with Iraq foundered on exactly that point two years ago. (And look at Iraq today, consumed by the worst sectarian violence the nation has seen in years.) But how does that disagreement make Karzai Afghanistans greatest enemy?
First of all, he knows full well that 80 percent to 90 percent of Afghanistans annual budget income is foreign aid from the United States and other NATO nations.
Afghanistan manufactures almost nothing of value except opium poppies, used to make 90 percent of the worlds heroin. But income from that goes to drug traffickers and tithing for the Taliban.
So when the U.S. and NATO leave and stop providing copious aid, the Afghan economy will simply collapse. Theres little debate about that.
Serious as that prospect is, thats hardly the only problem. Mullah Mohammed Omar, the reclusive head of the Taliban, issued a warning last week, saying his forces will continue aggressive attacks if Western forces stay on past next years withdrawal date. But without the security agreement, many Afghans fear the Taliban wont simply carry out terror attacks. They'll retake most of the country.
The United Nations reports that more than a half-million Afghans have already been abandoning their homes, farms, orchards or businesses in recent months. Theyre fleeing to the Kabul suburbs or other countries presumably near-certain the Taliban will return.
Despite all that, Karzai seems to be reneging on at least one point he and Kerry already agreed on. In a radio speech last week, Karzai said our demands include an end to unilateral military operations by foreign troops, a key point that was said to have been settled. The U.S. wants to maintain the authority to attack any al-Qaida sites the military may find.
As for the remaining sticking point, legal jurisdiction for American soldiers accused of crimes, Karzai told Kerry he will convene a loya jirga, an assembly of tribal elders, handpicked by Karzai, to decide that. Later, Karzai also suggested that he thought the next government should decide whether to accept the agreement. Its supposed to take office in April. But the U.S. says it needs an answer by the end of this month.
What if the tribal elders or the next government insist, as Karzai has, that Americans accused of a crime be tried in Afghan courts? Kerry said he is adamant they be tried in U.S. courts, adding: And Afghan leaders have a choice: Either thats the way it is, or there wont be any forces there of any kind.
And no wonder. A Transparency International survey last summer found that the police and courts are the most corrupt institutions in the state.
Azizullah Ludin, head of the states High Office of Oversight and Anti-Corruption, told TOLOnews, an Afghan TV station: I can say that corruption exists in the Afghan judiciary to the extent that if someone has taken your cat, and you want to go to court to get your cat back, then you have to give up your cow for your cat.
Karzai and his carefully chosen loya jirga would be fools to reject Americas offer. They would be condemning the nation and its people to a fate horrid beyond imagining.
Former New York Times correspondent Joel Brinkley is the Hearst professional in residence at Stanford University