Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which Is More Corrupt: Afghanistan or America?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Which Is More Corrupt: Afghanistan or America?



    KABUL, Afghanistan — None of President Hamid Karzai's top advisers knew that he had been receiving tens of millions of dollars in secret cash from the CIA, Afghanistan's senior anticorruption official said, and he added that he did not believe the Afghan leader's claim that he had been giving the agency regular receipts for the money.
    Mohammad Yasin Osmani, the head of the Independent Joint Anti-Corruption Monitoring and Evaluation Committee, said in an interview last week that he and 39 other advisers who audit expenditures throughout the government "were not aware" of the decade-old payouts, which Karzai acknowledged at a news conference in Kabul on May 4.
    But Osmani, like other Afghan government officials, was reluctant to criticize Karzai or accuse him of personal corruption, highlighting a growing friction between Afghanistan and the International Security Assistance Force led by the United States over an issue that threatens to upend the rebuilding effort here, and possibly U.S. plans for a post-2014 "strategic partnership" with Afghanistan. Many Afghan officials and politicians contend that their nation's reputation for rampant corruption is exaggerated—according to Transparency International, a monitoring group, Afghanistan is the most corrupt nation on earth, along with Myanmar, North Korea, and Somalia. They say that more to blame are poor procedures by ISAF and Washington that hand aid money directly over to graft-plagued contractors and subcontractors.
    Ashraf Ghani, a former finance minister who is currently the chairman of the Afghan Transition Coordination Commission, said the Karzai cash controversy is viewed in Washington as simply more evidence of Afghanistan's corrupt ways. But he asked: "What does it say about the way the American government conducts itself?"
    It is, perhaps, a fair point, especially coming after a decade in which the $60 billion American rebuilding effort in Iraq was deemed hopelessly corrupt—in part because, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen concluded in his final report in March, in many cases U.S. officials did not consult with Iraqis closely or deeply enough to determine what reconstruction projects were really needed. Now the Afghans are saying the same thing. Even as the security transition to the Afghan National Security Forces is said to be going more smoothly, civilian transition from U.S. to Afghan oversight is a disaster, Finance Minister Omar Zakhilwal said in an interview. "The transition has not happened," he said, although as the ISAF-formed "provincial reconstruction teams" are being dismantled.
    U.S. aid rules have themselves become a source of corruption, Osmani says. Too many private contractors skim off the top as they subcontract a job out, a practice that the Afghan government itself would not permit, he says. Beyond that, "nobody has the right [in the Afghan government] to monitor international community projects," and yet international auditors are often too leery of going to insecure areas. So little monitoring occurs. And in some cases U.S.-built projects appear to be following the pattern in Iraq. Osmani cited a case in which the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, John Sopko, criticized a $73 million contract given by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to DynCorp International for a shoddily built Afghan National Army base in Kunduz Province. "They didn't allow the [Afghan] government to go out and supervise the project!" Osmani said.
    The finger-pointing on both sides suggests a long-married couple—10 years of geopolitical marriage in this case—who are fed up with each other but can't bear the idea of divorce. And the mood is getting testier. In a recent report, Sopko accused the Afghan government of "targeting American contractors with unjust taxes and intimidation." Zakhilwal says the allegations are false. Even in the case of Afghanistan's biggest economic weakness, the heroin trade, Afghan officials say the corruption is far greater outside Afghanistan than inside. "From 2002 to 2009, $420 billion to $460 billion was made by international dealers [out of Afghanistan], while $18 billion made by the Afghan mafia," says Ghani, citing a report by the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. "The illegal economy is totally integrated into globalization: with credit and transport."
    The question of whether Afghanistan is just too corrupt to save has shaped the entire U.S. approach to post-9/11 Afghanistan, tilting the Obama administration gradually away from "nation-building" and toward a more pared-down counterterrorism strategy. In February 2008, three U.S. senators who are today the Obama administration's key foreign-policy heavyweights—Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel, and John Kerry—had a crucial dinner with Karzai at the Afghan president's palace. After Hagel raised the subject of corruption in Karzai's government, including runaway graft and narcotics connections, Karzai replied, "My dear senator, there is no corruption in my government." Things then got testier. The American visitors insisted they had a list of corrupt officials and that Karzai's brother was at the top of it, but the Afghan leader disingenuously denied it all—until Biden, by the dessert course, threw down his napkin. "This dinner is over," he said, walking out. Hagel and Kerry followed.
    Biden never really regained his trust in Karzai, and by 2009, after he became Barack Obama's vice president, he turned into the new administration's No. 1 skeptic about nation-building. The doubts about Karzai, culminating in charges of election fraud, also poisoned the Afghan president's relations with the late Richard Holbrooke, Obama's special representative for Afghanistan. Karzai continues to deny charges of personal corruption, including about the CIA money. "This money was not given to warlords," he said at the May 4 news conference in Kabul. "The major part of this money was spent on government employees such as our guards.... It has been paid to individuals, not movements.... We give receipts for all these expenditures to the U.S. government."
    Even Osmani is skeptical about that last point. Asked whether he believed there were "receipts," he responded, "No." But there are clearly two sides to every corruption story, and the U.S. and Afghan governments need to get their stories straight if the "partnership" is to survive after 2014.
    Even Adobe Photoshop can't change me.

    A line[Durrand line] of hatred that raised a wall between the two brothers -Hamid Karzai

    For generations, the Hindus of India prayed for deliverance from "the venom of the cobra, the teeth of the tiger and the vengeance of the Afghan."


    The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were questioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, "Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and disturbances." Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns. The people of India call them Patán; but the reason for this is not known. But it occurs to me, that when, under the rule of Muhammadan sovereigns, Musulmáns first came to the city of Patná, and dwelt there, the people of India (for that reason) called them Patáns—but God knows!

    -Ferishta, 1560–1620

  • #2
    I think that its not fair to call America or Afghanistan "corrupt." The people are the ordinary people. Rather, a fairer comparison is the elites versus the elites.

    That is... would Barak Obama be more corrupt or Karzai? Would Bush be more corrupt or Karzai?

    I am not at all trying to make excuses for America but what I am saying is that I think this logic in the article is trying to somehow mollify the critics of the Afghan government by blaming graft and corruption on Americans.

    The Brits, Americans, Turks, Romans, Egyptians etc etc etc are doing the historical pattern of what empires have done since time immemorial. Their original sin is power projection and interventionalism in places and imperial hubris.

    On a local level though - the laws that regulate American governance and their implementation within the US is much more commendable and admirable than Karzai and his expat goons (Arsala, Ghani, etc).

    Take for instance this issue in Britain:

    BAE accused of secretly paying £1bn to Saudi prince | World news | The Guardian

    The British let Tony Blair and his government get away with tons of corruption and deal making with Saudi royals for lucrative arms deals.

    The reason this scandal broke was that the Americans prosecuted the criminals when they traveled through American air space. The lead investigator noted how oblivious these Europeans were to the teeth that Americans put into their law.

    Or take the fact that gifts from heads of state cannot exceed a certain petty amount or else they have to be donated to the library of congress.

    What an empire does beyond its shores is historically the same as others have always done. It was maybe a few Brits or a few Frenchies or a few Turks or Germans or Persians that tried to do good by their subjugated people. In fact that is why Cyrus the persian is held in such high esteem - he was the exception and not the rule. Or for that matter why Sikander was so skilled in leaving the conquered a lot of real autonomy so long as some cut came to him.

    To expect a democratic capitalist empire to behave in any other way in Afghanistan is a testament to the foolishness of the graft laden government officials there. Even after his "I am a Lion" speech that bozo Karzai has the nerve to expect a zero sum game all while accepting ghost monies?

    Is there corruption within the US in that fair trials and honest attempts at justice are subverted? Sure of course. But it is still the government of the Americans and they are at the helm.

    In summary:
    Afghan government is far more corrupt when it comes to its internal interests and the rights of its people and its own autonomy on any given day than the US government.
    "2 crackheads don't become any better or stronger by sharing the same crack pipe." - Greatest PF quote

    Comment


    • #3
      Or take the internal dialogue on the scandals regarding monitoring the AP reporters and the James Risen. Or the rebuke of the IRS here. This is all valid internal regulation and fighting corruption.

      The buck stops at Hamida's doorstep in Kabul regarding his inability to live up to his strategic balancing game plan. After all, if such graft is discovered, and Afghans and their resources are being manipulated a great leader will spend every waking hour trying to correct that problem instead of not recognizing that he got the country into this mess in the initial place.
      "2 crackheads don't become any better or stronger by sharing the same crack pipe." - Greatest PF quote

      Comment


      • #4
        What makes you think they are mentioning the people?
        Even Adobe Photoshop can't change me.

        A line[Durrand line] of hatred that raised a wall between the two brothers -Hamid Karzai

        For generations, the Hindus of India prayed for deliverance from "the venom of the cobra, the teeth of the tiger and the vengeance of the Afghan."


        The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were questioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, "Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and disturbances." Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns. The people of India call them Patán; but the reason for this is not known. But it occurs to me, that when, under the rule of Muhammadan sovereigns, Musulmáns first came to the city of Patná, and dwelt there, the people of India (for that reason) called them Patáns—but God knows!

        -Ferishta, 1560–1620

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Admin Khan View Post
          What makes you think they are mentioning the people?
          Hey Admin

          The Corps of Engineers, folks with who I have interacted in the past are generally good people derived from the middle class Americas. They are mentioned in the article. They used to for instance do a lot of the road design and highway design in Carter's time and would probably have relished the chance to not parcel out and privatize the design of Afghan roadways. The current post Bush climate though enforces the idea that these engineers are there to float contracts to business contractors.

          Its sort of like when the Army involves blackwater... as a mercenary.

          I understand the argument behind capitalism - but when it comes to this sort of thing, i.e being involved in nation building, I think its essential to take the monetary incentive out of it and put a lot of oversight into this.

          So thats what I mean by the people.

          By that same token - similar to the article about the Afghan electric Co - the people in the company had some attempts to stop Dostum from warlording free electricity to himself and his goons. But then above them in the totem pole were folks invested with Dostum.

          Same principle applies here. I feel that removing this elite crop of gophers at the top would leave some fresh top soil (Afghan emigres who arent making a positional or monetary benefit and would be willing to speak truth to power).
          "2 crackheads don't become any better or stronger by sharing the same crack pipe." - Greatest PF quote

          Comment

          Working...
          X