THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING

US diplomat raised notion of ousting Karzai as Afghan leader

Disagreed with top UN envoy on vote fraud claims

By James Glanz and Richard A. Oppel Jr.
New York Times / December 17, 2009

E-mail this article

Invalid E-mail address
Invalid E-mail address

Sending your article

Your article has been sent.

  • E-mail|
  • Print|
  • Reprints|
  • |
Text size +

NEW YORK - As widespread fraud in the Afghanistan presidential election was becoming clear three months ago, the number-two United Nations official in the country, American diplomat Peter W. Galbraith, proposed enlisting the White House in a plan to replace the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, according to two senior UN officials.

Karzai, the officials said, became incensed when he learned of the plan and was told it had been put forth by Galbraith, who had been installed in his position with the strong backing of Richard C. Holbrooke, the top American envoy to Afghanistan. Holbrooke had himself clashed with the Afghan president over the election.

Galbraith abruptly left the country in early September and was fired weeks later. He has said he believes that he was forced out because he was feuding with his boss, the Norwegian diplomat Kai Eide, the top UN official in Kabul, over how to respond to what he termed wholesale fraud in the Afghan presidential election. He accused Eide of concealing the degree of fraud benefiting Karzai.

Galbraith said in an interview that he had discussed but never actively promoted the idea of persuading Karzai to leave office.

Galbraith’s warnings about fraud were largely confirmed in October, when a UN-backed audit stripped Karzai of almost one-third of his votes, preventing a first-round victory and forcing him into a runoff. Karzai was proclaimed the winner last month after his challenger withdrew, saying the runoff would not be fair.

But the disclosure of Galbraith’s proposal to replace Karzai, contained in a letter written by Eide and reported in interviews with UN and American officials, provides new perspective on the crisis in Kabul that enveloped the United Nations, and on the bitter feud between Galbraith and Eide.

The degree to which the United States should stand behind Karzai was vigorously debated in Washington in the fall as the Obama administration pondered how to handle the disputed election in Afghanistan. Karzai is often criticized as being an ineffective leader in the battle against the Taliban, and as a man who tolerates widespread corruption in his ranks. He has an acrimonious relationship with many American leaders.

Holbrooke said he himself was unaware of the idea of replacing Karzai. He also contended it was nothing Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton “or anyone else in the State Department would have considered.’’

Galbraith, a former American ambassador and an influential voice on Iraq, also came under scrutiny recently for his stake in an oil field in the Kurdish region of Iraq.

Eide, who is set to leave his job as head of the UN mission in Afghanistan by early next year, said Galbraith left Afghanistan in early September immediately after Eide rejected what he described as Galbraith’s proposal to replace Karzai and install a more Western-friendly figure.

Eide said he told his deputy the plan was “unconstitutional, it represented interference of the worst sort, and if pursued it would provoke not only a strong international reaction’’ but also civil insurrection. It was during this conversation, Eide said, that Galbraith proposed taking a leave to the United States, and Eide accepted.