A couple days ago, President Obama met with his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai to discuss the corruption that has come to typify his administration. A necessary but seemingly insufficient strategic partner in the Middle East, the Afghan government under Karzai has been marred with corruption beginning with reelection this past November, an outcome that continues to be disputed on the basis of electoral fraud and irregularities. The Economist makes mention of Karzai's half-brother, who has been bombarded with accusations of drug trafficking. While the battle against corruption seems to be clearly defined, requiring a cleanup of the existing administration, the overall situation in Afghanistan is about as clear as a quart of SAE-30. For the sake of argument, three independent actors can be identified: the West, the Afghan government, and militant groups. Overlapping objectives muddy the situation. While the West obviously has an interest in curbing corruption within the Karzai administration, and would like to end the conflict, it wishes not to make concessions to militant groups for fear of being seen as having lost the war. Militant groups share these objectives, that is to have Western troops out and a less corrupt government. Finally, while the Karzai administation claims to be taking strides to address internal corruption, how much it will actually accomplish is dubious. Moreover, corrupt interactions between militant groups and the members of the administration further complicate the situation. Similarly, just recently Karzai acknowledged the widespread presence of corruption in relation to his reelection, but deflected the blame from himself to Western actors hoping to tarnish his public image and obstruct future bids for office. Although recently phoning Secretary of State Clinton to apologize/explain himself, Karzai's action represents another dimension of division: the Middle East vs. the West.
No comments:
Post a Comment