Zalmay Khalilzad played a distasteful role in the pseudo-triumphant return of Benazir Bhutto from notorious corruption-fueled exile… namely, the “old friend” was the one of the U.S. officials who convinced her to return on her ill-fated trip to take back Pakistan’s Parliament. We all know how that turned out.
Now comes news of Khalilzad’s “unauthorized contacts” with Bhutto’s widow, Asif Zadari, Mr. Ten Percent himself, one of the main reasons Bhutto was thrown from office and booted from Pakistan.
Mr. Khalilzad had spoken by telephone with Mr. Zardari, the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, several times a week for the past month until he was confronted about the unauthorized contacts, a senior United States official said. Other officials said Mr. Khalilzad had planned to meet with Mr. Zardari privately next Tuesday while on vacation in Dubai, in a session that was canceled only after Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South Asia, learned from Mr. Zardari himself that the ambassador was providing “advice and help.”
“Can I ask what sort of ‘advice and help’ you are providing?” Mr. Boucher wrote in an angry e-mail message to Mr. Khalilzad. “What sort of channel is this? Governmental, private, personnel?” Copies of the message were sent to others at the highest levels of the State Department; the message was provided to The New York Times by an administration official who had received a copy.
Well for once the U.S. is showing an ounce of sensitivity for the deadly consequences of its meddling in Pakistan’s politics. But shame on Khalilzad—friend or no, he has no business, as Ambassador to the UN, to be inserting himself into the race for President like this. It’s not like he hadn’t learned his lesson from the last time he tried to do that, when Ms. Bhutto herself suffered the fatal consequences of trying to play Pakistan like it’s the 90s all over again.
{ 12 comments }
Don’t worry, Joshua! Condi will straighten him out.
Do you really think that Khalilzad was acting on his own? This is a turf war, fought out, for now, in the media.
New York times mentions that he might be lining up to be… president of Afghanistan! wtf? A US UN ambassador plotting to take the place of a US ally?What is this, Florence 1450? Who hired that fool for that job, anyway?
“The conduct by Mr. Khalilzad, who is Afghan by birth, has also raised hackles because of speculation that he might seek to succeed Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan. Mr. Khalilzad, who was the Bush administration’s first ambassador to Afghanistan, has also kept in close contact with Afghan officials, angering William Wood, the current American ambassador, said officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter of Mr. Khalilzad’s contacts.”
Khalilzad was not the first ambassador post-Taliban, Robert Finn was. Khalilzad’s free-lance activities at that time were a source of frustration for the embassy.
Khalilzad has strong ties to senior officials in this administration. He has a reputation for acting without consideration to the formal, specified lines of authority, especially within the State Department.
Re: Khalilzad’s “contacts” with Karzai, which infuriated the US embassy folks in Kabul and raised a mini-storm. So what’s wrong with a brother trying to run the world on his own?
By the way, Khalilzad with his shenanigans may be able to get somewhat of a move on with the whole Durand Line/Taliban problem if he can leverage his weight with Mr. 10%. That would be the best case scenario. Alternatively, the army most likely hates Zardari (as does every other organ in the state) and nothing will come of it.
@fnord,
“…A US UN ambassador plotting to take the place of a US ally?…”
Not so strange. In 1996, french national and government minister Salome Zurabshivili(sp?) was given permission to leave for Georgia and become its foreign minister. It was under her competent hand that she negotiated the early withdrawl of russian peacekeepers from Georgia. How was she repaid by Saakashvili? She was fired because she wanted to work with real professionals in the foreign ministry and not loyal Saakashvili-ites. She now leads a very small opposition party.
Sorry, I meant 2006, not 1996!
I can’t help myself…not loyal Saakashvili-ites… you mean Saakashvillians?
This seems a fairly typical case of someone overestimating their own abilities and importance.
This seems a fairly typical case of someone overestimating their own abilities and importance.
Get over the “notorious corruption fueled exile…” Any sober person with a minimum understanding of Pakistan knew that it was Benazir who could have brought that country together, and rallied her people behind agendas less suicidal than those that prevailed in Pakistan. The “The Age” report you are referencing implicates Negroponte in trying yet again his designs for Latin America (…faith in military dictators) in a new age and new place. Not Khalilzad. Read it carefully.
Maybe Khalilzad was a force behind Benazir’s return, and so were those millions of Pakistanis who voted for her party, the dozens who lost their lives on the first attempt at her life…Sometimes you are dead confused. What did you want? A continued reign of Musharraf who would play America like yo-yo? Arm-chairists got convinced of Musharraf’s dualities at least about three to four years AFTER Khalilzad first voiced public concern over Pakistan’s aid to the resurgent Taliban. Check news reports from March 2004. As for the sad end to Benazir’s sought redemption, you might want to look at what Ron Suskind had to write: http://watandost.blogspot.com/2008/08/musharraf-linked-benazirs-security-to.html
Somebody also needs to check if Boucher is senior than Khalilzad. I thought the Ambassador/Chief of Mission to the U.N. was a cabinet level job.
It is a bit naive and wrong of you to think that the U.S. is “showing an ounce of sensitivity for the deadly consequences of its meddling in Pakistan’s politics.” It simply isn’t. Count Boucher’s trips to Pakistan since the February elections. And if it is, this is not the way to do it. You shouldn’t be leaking the contacts a senior official is having with a leader of Pakistan whose good-will might come handy. This is turf-war played at the expense of sober policy towards Pakistan. The leak is only going to add to the perception that the U.S. is involved in Pakistan’s internal affairs. The failure of the U.S. is not in its involvement in the internal affairs of Pakistan. As a major player in that region, it will, like it or not, be involved. The point here is how to mask that involvement. Leaks to the NYT don’t help.
Qumandan, I think you have to intentionally ignore everything I’ve written on here about Pakistan to pretend like I prefer Musharraf in power, just as I think you have to intentionally ignore much about Bhutto to pretend she or her husband are not guilty of horrendous acts of corruption, not to mention potentially murder. When you’re removed from office twice, then exiled, the indicted in multiple European countries for billions of dollars in money laundering, it’s not a stretch to call someone corrupt.
Just as it’s naive to assume the U.S. isn’t desperately trying to meddle in Pakistan’s politics. That’s why it was good of Boucher to call Khalilzad out on this. He has no business operating his own networks in that country, especially in his current position.
Comments on this entry are closed.