West hails Karzai as 'legitimate' president..
This shows that political expediency takes precedence over ethics and morality. We should all be ashamed of our leaders :O(
British and American officials rushed to congratulate Mr Karzai as the country's "legitimate leader" as the international community tried to draw a line under months of paralysing political limbo following the Aug 20 vote which was mired in fraud.
But London and Washington also made clear that they expect him to make immediate moves towards bolstering the ranks of the armed forces, tackling corruption and giving the defeated opposition a role within his new government.
The White House said there would be "hard conversations" ahead during the early weeks of Mr Karzai's second term, while Gordon Brown called on Mr Karzai to set out a "unifying" programme for Afghanistan.
After initially insisting that a run-off between Mr Karzai and his challenger Abdullah Abdullah be held on Nov 7, the Independent Election Commission announced it was no longer needed.
Dr Abdullah pulled out of the race on Sunday, telling a rally of supporters that it would be impossible to hold a free and fair second round in the face of state fraud.
Ban Ki-moon, United Nations secretary general, then made an unexpected visit to Kabul early on Monday and met both candidates. He called on the election officials to resolve the matter "as soon as possible" in a "politically sustainable way".
An hour later, the IEC said the vote had been cancelled to prevent insecurity and instability and added that Mr Karzai had won.
Zekria Barakzai, deputy chief electoral officer, said: "Why should people sacrifice their lives for an election when the result is already known?"
Baryalai Arsalai, a former presidential candidate who pulled out of the race to join Dr Abdullah, said the decision did not make Mr Karzai the legitimate president.
He said: "He doesn't have the majority vote that's needed to become president. He still has a problem of legitimacy.
"When I see foreign countries congratulating him and welcoming him as legitimate president, they themselves are not recognising the principles of democracy."
Telegraph
You are correct. However in this case, did we need karzai or does he need us ?
Britexpat - would that be the ethics and morality programme that led to Blair cancelling the criminal investigation into BAe backhanders, because it would upset the Saudis (and Qataris ... don't forget how the Labour Government somehow weighed in over certain Channel Islands bank accounts) .... oh, sorry, I mean was "harmful to the British national interest".
Some ethics, some morality. Lots of "pragmatism".
PaulCowman,
something like that!
Nic, I presume the expression you are looking for is either "his Muslim brothers" or "a kangaroo court", not sure which one you meant ;)
Kardic is being judge by an international war tribunal, sadam was judge by (i dont know what to call it)...
Brit,
Blame Blair, such an intelligent guy with such dumb choices and decisions!
(I hope EU won't forget that he is the one who blindly backed up Bush).
Kardic is on trial for long time (he has almost enjoyed his active life, now he's an old Dog), and when it was President Saddam, they finished the trial within couple of weeks.
The whole election was a joke. Afghanistan: population, 36 million; votes cast (after deleting 2 million fakes) about 3 million. Karzai's share - about 2 million.
So getting one in 20 Afghans to vote for you is more than good enough and would have been proclaimed "credible" and a triumph for democracy if the fraud hadn't been so blatant.
Ahmadinejad's 24 million votes out of a population of 66 million looks pristine by comparison - heck, if he got only the five million that Newsweek proclaimed its research (haha) had revealed he would get, that's still almost double Karzai's per capital tally.
Still, Karzai's a legitimate president and Ahmadinejad is a fraud who stole the election. It must be true if the New York Times says so.
There is a major issue of ethics here. I can only speak for the actions of the British government. When Labour came to power, one of the cornerstones of their foreign policy was ethics and morality when dealing with foreign powers.
We all too readily harp on about democracy and ethics, yet this episode clearly shows that we turn a blind eye when it suits us.
I realise that it is politics, but personaly I am ashamed of my own government.
exiled
you are pretty right, that it was west that was defending the Bosnian Muslims, when they realized that the muslims had started tough time for the oppositions. and again it was in their personal interest, when all has gone.
and for instant if all the hijackers were Saudi's (none of them was Afghan), then why the US always bowing them???
Do they have Petro dollar ???
Iraq is a different story and is not connected to Afghanistan.
There is evidence that Al Qaedas network was behind the attacks and most of the terrorists were Saudis. (Mulla Omar only activity was to persecute his own people and give Bin Laden Sanctuary)
However what Bin Laden has done very well with those of Al Qaeda is perpetrate the lie that everything is a Zionist-Christian conspiracy and that Muslims are always the victims. A line that goes down well in the Arab and Muslim world.
How soon they forget that is was the West that was defending the Bosnian and the Kosovan Muslims from Christian Serbia and even know Kardic is on trial in Europe for those crimes. I know it hardly fits in with the story that the west is crusading against Muslims.
Maybe the real fact is the West was indifferent to Islam for 100s of years, so maybe be ignored all this time really upset them.....
exiledsaint,
Just to clarify, I said "THEY SAY..." not "I say".
They claim that American's unwanted presence / interference / influence in the Muslim World and their protection role of Israel against Palestine's invasion, are the 2 main triggers for their attacks.
till now, the eight years has been passed away, why its not officially declared by US that Osama or Mula Omar were involved in 9/11???
Anyone of the hijackers were trained in Afghanistan or Iraq to fly the Planes and hit the twin towers, or any of them were from Afghanistan or Iraq ???
Well Nic please state if the attacks I mentioned happened before the west attacked their 'home'? Or can you tell me what other attacks the west did against them for them to allow people intent on murder of westerners to live there?
True Dot Com, helping them attack the russians was in the interest of the west, but why then turn on your friends that helped you?
Foreign troops are earning money from drug production in Afghanistan. The majority of drugs are stockpiled in two provinces controlled by troops from the US, the UK, and Canada.
Drug production in the Central Asian country has increased dramatically since the US-led invasion eight years ago.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Ahmad Wali Karzai, a brother of the Afghan president, is involved in the opium trade, meets with Taliban leaders, and is also a CIA operative.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=110130§ionid=351020403
exiledsaint,
They say they attack the west because the west interferes in their "home"
instead of the west spending billions of dollars and lives trying to fight an utopia war, perhaps it would be better, as Brit mentioned, to spend that money protecting their own borders and who and how they let in and how they let them "circulate" within those borders.
This is not a war against a tangible enemy with its tangible army. It’s a war against an ideology that keeps growing fed by war itself!
mmyke --- we love our mud hut, if the uninvited guests (the so called civilized) leave us alone.
exiled --- the west helped them for their own interest against russia. didn't u heard that enemy of your enemy is your best friend???
beside all these, they don't have any further choice rather then Karzai, either by hook or by crook.
Nic, mmyke I all with let them live as they want, but the problem is the people that lived there started interfering in other countries!!
Embassy bombins in Tanzania and Kenya
9/11
Attack on the USS Cole
etc
If the west is prepared to let some of its citizens die in such attacks then by all means the west should leave them alone as its a price worth paying
Well Brit if you want to rid yourself of the hornet problem, the only way to be sure is to go right to the nest...
I am also with mmyke, let them live the way they want!
I would tend to agree with mmyke..
We need to get out and focus more on securing our own borders than fighting in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is a mess and the elections were far from fair. Tribal and personal loyalties are stronger than any adherence to free and fair elections. If it wasn't the fact that it became a hiding place for dangerous people i would say just let them get on with it. They have no loyalty to the west. When the west helped them defeat the Russians who did they repay them? By harbouring dangerous terrorists and letting them attack the west while persecuting their own people in a religious dictatorship.
So what to do? Good question and I don't know.
don't need th west to destroy their homes,,they are extremely good at doing this themselves...as one QLer on here once stated, the natural Afghan industry is warfare and double-crossing.
sighhhh.....politics and politicians.the two things that never change with time.they were morons in the beginning and continue the legacy till date.
Going to church no more makes you a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car. ~ Garrison Keillor
I am pretty much ashamed of all leaders in the world. The only thing they are good at is to destroy our home.
"Love Me or Leave Me"
(MagicDragon)
should get out of there as quickly as possible and leave them to their corruption and mud huts.
brit,
you are too nice!
We allowed Karzai to manipulate the system to run for another term , when he shouldn't have. Then we watched as he carried out widespread fraud in the elections.
Yes, we need support in Afghanistan, but what about the principles we espouse to others ?
I don't think hails is the right choice of words, probably reluctantly they made the best of a bad lot. After pressurising him into a run off with Abdualla Abdulla, (So good they named him twice) the guy pulls out. What are they supposed to do, have an election with one candidate and see how many people get killed?