Toeing the line on world stage

Afghan President Hamid Karzai (left) and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf at the world forum in Davos last month. (FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images)

THE World Economic Forum, with its unparalleled convening powers, often brings together strange bedfellows who might not otherwise appear together on the same stage. Last month in Davos, for example, America's ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, sat next to Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, on a panel. According to news reports, the White House was furious. President Bush is still taking a hard line against Iran, and to have one of his senior diplomats sit next to evil was apparently seen as a betrayal. A spokesman for Khalilzad had to quickly say "there was no separate meeting or separate conversation or handshake. . ." just a "multilateral conversation with the moderator."

It is pathetic that a former ambassador to Kabul and Baghdad should have to explain himself, but then again the administration is split on what to do about Iran, and Bush's policy has become incoherent. It was a sign of the times that the White House found out about the encounter only on YouTube.

On another Davos panel, Presidents Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, a blunt, sparkplug of a man with a military bearing in a business suit, appeared with the sinewy, almost feline Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, with his customary cape draped over his shoulders, and his lamb's-wool cap. Both are crucial US allies who, if body language is any indication, can't stand each other. Both represent a US policy in trouble.

Although both say they have held constructive talks, Karzai made it clear that he felt the entire problem of the Taliban resurgence lay with their safe havens in Pakistan. Musharraf claimed that Afghanistan was the problem.

Musharraf went to Davos to plead for understanding and continued support, stressing that the world should judge his country on the well being of its people rather than on Western definitions of democracy. There can be no doubt that Musharraf has transformed Pakistan's economy, but politically his support has seriously deteriorated. He promised a free and fair election later this month, but he is in a no-win situation because, no matter what the results, one side or the other will claim fraud.

While I have no doubt that both are the best their respective countries have to offer at the moment, Musharraf, upon whom the United States has placed all its chips, has fallen into deep trouble with his own people, beginning with the firing of his supreme court. He says the court abused its office, but the real reason may be that he feared it would disallow his run for another term as president.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto, whom the United States hoped would legitimize Musharraf, has further clouded his reign, and left US strategy in a shambles. Musharraf spent his time in Davos trying to convince anyone who would listen that he is still the best man to lead a transition to democracy and fight extremism. But democracy seemed further away than ever, and extremism ever closer.

Karzai, upon whom the United States has also placed all its chips, spoke of terrorism as a "political mutant, a Frankenstein," that was created through following "a short-sighted policy for the reckless pursuit of misperceived interests. It is a venomous snake that some among us tried to nurture and befriend at the expense of others, which I hope we realize was a mistake." The "some among us" was clearly Pakistan.

Karzai's problems are the opposite of Musharraf's. Musharraf is a good manager and a firm leader whose grip on power is too tight and unrelenting, frustrating his countrymen, many of whom think it is time for him to go. He rules the country with a firm hand, but his legitimacy seems to be fading.

Karzai, on the other hand, is a poor manger whose hold on power is too loose, frustrating many of his countrymen who think him too weak. He doesn't lack legitimacy, even though his writ does not run far outside the capital.

"In a way he is a bit like a king: He spends so much time listening to other people that he then doesn't know what to do," a diplomat in Kabul told the Financial Times. "He is completely overwhelmed in work, and has not taken a proper break since 2001. He has had no time for mental reflection."

When a reporter asked Karzai if he had seen "Charlie Wilson's War," he said that, although he used to see a lot of Charlie Wilson in the old days, he didn't have time to go to the movies anymore.

H.D.S. Greenway's column appears regularly in the Globe.