Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) Afghan election exposes US hypocrisy

Afghan election exposes US hypocrisy
Opinion by Tendai Hildegarde Manzvanzvike
Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:53:00 +0000

ZIMBABWE and Afghanistan are thousands and thousands of miles apart. What makes them suitable variables for comparative analysis? Why is the West — the United States and Britain in particular — interested in the two nation states? Why are their recent electoral processes of significance?

After the failure of the illegal regime change project in Zimbabwe, "legitimised" in part by the US sanctions law, the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, the US and its allies continue to refuse to recognise a Zimbabwe Government in which both President Mugabe and Zanu-PF are major players, preferring their handpicked stooges to be in charge.

They have continued to denounce Zimbabwe’s 2008 harmonised elections and the subsequent Presidential run-off on the basis of alleged issues of governance, rule of law, human rights, etc.

However, the culmination of Afghanistan’s presidential poll has revealed the levels of the West’s hypocrisy and double standards, especially the US, when it comes to Zimbabwe.

The Afghan issue shows that every principle of democracy, which the West preaches about and would want to export to every part of the world, has been thrown into the dumpster because their national interests took precedence over the wishes and interests of the Afghan people.

For, on November 2, Afghanistan’s Independent Electoral Commission announced that there was a new president, and he was none other than former president Hamid Karzai.

The Western world, Washington in particular, was quick to embrace and endorse Karzai as the legitimate leader of Afghanistan.

This contrasted with the West’s reaction to Zimbabwe’s run-off that invited a full-blown diplomatic offensive in order to reject not only the electoral results, but also de-legitimise President Mugabe, in favour of the US, Britain and their allies.

Large sums of money were disbursed through civic organisations in order to change the colour of Zimbabwe’s politics, a desperate attempt meant to reverse the gains of independence, especially the land reform programme, and also derail Zimbabwe’s sovereignty.

People’s memories are still fresh with the attempts made by the Bush administration, through his Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Jendayi Frazer, to influence Sadc and the African Union. There were several vain attempts to have Zimbabwe on the UN Security Council agenda.

In fact, last week’s abortive visit by UN’s special rapporteur on torture, Dr Norman Nowak, was a clear demonstration that until a government of the West’s choice is in power in Zimbabwe; they will not relent in their quest for regime change.

It is a goal and objective that they are pursuing with impunity, even if it means funding parallel government structures within the inclusive Government in pursuance of their interests.

However, on September 15, after monitoring the Afghan elections, former US president Jimmy Carter described the Afghan poll as "despicable".

Said Carter: "Hamid Karzai has stolen the election . . . Now the question is whether he gets away with it."

Carter’s comments followed allegations of massive fraud.

Well, on November 2, it became official. Karzai defied the odds, stole the election and got away with it. If observers had expected disgust and dismay, they were actually surprised to learn that the Obama administration was the first to endorse Karzai as the "new president who (was) the same as the old president".

However, the announcement was just a formality meant to make the farcical exercise look credible because on October 31, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was reported as saying that the Afghan poll would be legitimate even if Abdullah Abdullah boycotted.

Said the reports in the media: "Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has said the Afghan elections would be legitimate even if Abdullah Abdullah boycotted the run-off poll, leaving President Hamid Karzai unopposed."

Clinton also said that a boycott of the run-off election which had been scheduled for November 7 by runner-up Abdullah would not de-legitimise the poll. This was after the Abdullah camp had refused to "participate in an election which (was) not transparent and fraud-free".

Long before Abdullah announced his withdrawal, both London and Washington were already anticipating that he would retire "graciously".

Clinton also said that the withdrawal of a candidate would not be "unprecedented" and would not affect the legitimacy of the vote.

"We see that happen in our own country where, for whatever combination of reasons, one of the candidates decides not to go forward. I don’t think it has anything to do with the legitimacy of the election."

So now people know where the withdrawals, boycotts and ‘‘disengagements’’ come from.

Washington was the first to endorse Karzai as Afghanistan’s new legitimate leader, after the Independent Electoral Commission had cancelled the run-off in the wake of Abdullah’s withdrawal.

In his congratulatory message, US President Barack Obama threw his weight behind Karzai and acknowledged that although the election was "messy", his administration was happy that the poll had finally been resolved according to the dictates of Afghan law, and expressed hope that there would be fresh efforts to tackle issues that were part of Karzai’s first term: rampant corruption. He also urged a new chapter in Afghan politics.

Meanwhile, other Nato members were talking about a coalition. The allies appeared to be talking about the same thing in a different way. Maybe it was because the likes of Gordon Brown, who spoke about a coalition, were not happy with the final outcome.

It is evident from this that the American experiment plays itself differently in various parts of the globe depending on whose side one is.

Karzai is a liability to his people, but he is an asset to Nato, and a speedy conclusion of this electoral issue was not necessarily meant for the Afghan people.

The Obama administration has also continued with Bush’s so-called war on terror. Instead of pulling troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama is actually looking at sending over 40 000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.

It appeared Karzai had to be endorsed fast since time is not on Uncle Sam’s side as winter is starting, and it will be very difficult to move troops in harsh weather conditions. This is despite the fact that the US administration has been advised that the Afghan war is unwinnable.

The Afghan war is also meant to boost Nato’s morale since the capitalist system is celebrating the demise of communism 20 years ago. This is despite the fact that the geo-political sphere is witnessing a resurgence of major political and economic players like China and Russia.

Labels: AFGHANISTAN, HILLARY CLINTON, NEOCOLONIALISM, SANCTIONS, ZDERA

posted by MrK @ 12:43 AM