Why Hasn’t America Intervened In Afghan Elections?
Published in China News
(China) on 20 August 2009
by (link to original)
A few days ago the Malaysian "China Press" printed an editorial that pointed out a unique aspect of this year’s presidential election in Afghanistan: no interference from the United States. There are two reasons for America's lack of intervention. The first is that U.S.-backed Hamid Karzai did not attain the anticipated amount of success, so he has been treated with neutrality. The second reason is that all of the candidates with any possibility of election will continue to side with the United States. American neutrality in this election leaves a door of goodwill open for U.S.-Afghan relations down the road.
An extract of the editorial follows:
Most people only know Afghanistan as an ancient country where the people are strongly influenced by religion, but in fact this misunderstood nation that shares borders with both southern and central Asia is also one of the world’s biggest producers of opium. America and Europe have been involved with war here for many years, but they have only overthrown the radical religious Taliban regime; they have not been able to eradicate opium production.
On the surface it’s another nation, but the real Afghanistan is a mass of chaos. Warlords and local powers have their own territories; different ethnic groups look out for their own interests. On top of that, with the influence of clans and localism, a single word of disagreement about territory rights or ethnic matters leads to hatred and even violence, in spite of their shared religion.
Eight years ago, then-President Bush, perhaps because his understanding of Afghanistan was too shallow, or perhaps because he had no better choice, placed Karzai in control as president in the interim government. In the years since then, the U.S. has more or less kept its distance from Karzai. Accordingly, before Bush’s term ended, he had already disclosed to Karzai that the U.S. would not one-sidedly provide him sympathies. This has continued through Obama’s presidency; although he is concerned for Afghanistan’s future and wants the nation to have a successful election it can be proud of, he would not assist Karzai’s campaign again.
A distinctive factor in this year’s Afghan presidential elections is its lack of U.S. intervention. America's non-involvement has two motives: First, U.S.-supported Hamid Karzai did not gain the expected level of support, so America has treated him with neutrality. Secondly, out of the thirty-six candidates, the only ones with any real chance of election are Karzai and three others, all of whom would support the United States if they won. It can be expected that the United States can be at ease with the new Afghan government; whoever becomes the next president will not become a problem for America, and that is why it has not intervened.
Karzai is confident about his chances for reelection and has not taken offense at U.S. neutrality; on the contrary, he appreciates the fact that America is not pushing for anyone to replace him. Regardless of who becomes president, the other candidates will also be relieved that there was no American intervention in this election. American neutrality here will leave an open door of goodwill for future U.S.-Afghan relations.
An extract of the editorial follows:
Most people only know Afghanistan as an ancient country where the people are strongly influenced by religion, but in fact this misunderstood nation that shares borders with both southern and central Asia is also one of the world’s biggest producers of opium. America and Europe have been involved with war here for many years, but they have only overthrown the radical religious Taliban regime; they have not been able to eradicate opium production.
On the surface it’s another nation, but the real Afghanistan is a mass of chaos. Warlords and local powers have their own territories; different ethnic groups look out for their own interests. On top of that, with the influence of clans and localism, a single word of disagreement about territory rights or ethnic matters leads to hatred and even violence, in spite of their shared religion.
Eight years ago, then-President Bush, perhaps because his understanding of Afghanistan was too shallow, or perhaps because he had no better choice, placed Karzai in control as president in the interim government. In the years since then, the U.S. has more or less kept its distance from Karzai. Accordingly, before Bush’s term ended, he had already disclosed to Karzai that the U.S. would not one-sidedly provide him sympathies. This has continued through Obama’s presidency; although he is concerned for Afghanistan’s future and wants the nation to have a successful election it can be proud of, he would not assist Karzai’s campaign again.
A distinctive factor in this year’s Afghan presidential elections is its lack of U.S. intervention. America's non-involvement has two motives: First, U.S.-supported Hamid Karzai did not gain the expected level of support, so America has treated him with neutrality. Secondly, out of the thirty-six candidates, the only ones with any real chance of election are Karzai and three others, all of whom would support the United States if they won. It can be expected that the United States can be at ease with the new Afghan government; whoever becomes the next president will not become a problem for America, and that is why it has not intervened.
Karzai is confident about his chances for reelection and has not taken offense at U.S. neutrality; on the contrary, he appreciates the fact that America is not pushing for anyone to replace him. Regardless of who becomes president, the other candidates will also be relieved that there was no American intervention in this election. American neutrality here will leave an open door of goodwill for future U.S.-Afghan relations.