What is wrong with Karzai?  Apparently not much.  History and circumstance offered him the opportunity of a lifetime to stand up to the great challenge of nation building.  His appearance on the Afghan political scene made some old politicians angry and some others happy.  Among the first group one can name Professor Rabbani the former leader of a Mujahideen government in Afghanistan and Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, his controversial prime minister now in exile in Iran. Among the second group are many will-wishers of Afghanistan who wanted to see the country delivered from a group of reactionaries who ruled it in the name of religion.

Rabbani has recently bitterly complained that the United Nations tricked him out of the decision making process in Bonn.  He has told the Arabic paper Asharq Alawsat based in London that Lakhdar Brahimi the United Nations envoy had told him that the Bonn meeting will be only consultative and that decisions will be made later in Kabul. "What happened was a scandal by all measures for it is shameful for any country that its government be formed outside its borders," said the former president of Afghanistan, who made a triumphant return to Kabul in November as political head of the Northern alliance which routed the former ruling Taliban regime with the help of a U.S. bombing campaign,” says a Reuter report. "We were tricked by U.N. representatives...If we had known that they would take decisions there, we would have sent another stronger delegation," he said. "Fateful decisions were taken in Bonn in the absence of field leaders who dedicated their lives to defend this country's honor and destiny."

Other reports referred to a request by Iran from Hikmatyar leader of the Islamic Party of Afghanistan, who had been giving interviews against the present regime in Afghanistan saying that his country was under foreign domination, to leave Iran.  

Apparently these two leaders infer that Karzai is not a good leader and that perhaps they can do better.  Well, history has already proven them wrong. 

In the past quarter of a century Afghanistan suffered greatly because of the lack of a single unifying leadership.  There were times that people wondered if there was any possibility to find one.  Some speculated that history and historical events create leaders during difficult times in the life of nations.  Afghans waited a quarter of a century and this did not happen.  The so- called self proclaimed leaders running establishments and movements using Islamic names proved to be working only for their own aggrandizement. As opportunity was provided them they failed the nation.  And they failed themselves. 

Now a young and educated Afghan has been put at the head of an interim administration whose members have been appointed not by him, but by a meeting heavily influenced by the Northern Alliance and the United Nations and the United States.  During the short span of time since his acquisition of power he has been tested widely in the international arena and has by world standards and expectations from a third world country leader, he has passed with flying colors.  His real test however would be inside the country where he faces one of the most difficult tasks of unifying a nation that has been suffering for many years from disunity and internal conflict.  Towards that end, he faces the test of finding an amicable solution to the conflict in Gardez, in the southeast.  He has to pacify opposing military forces of the Northern Alliance in the North and has to find a way to pacify a powerful leader in the West.  At the same time, he has to deal with his immediate neighbors in the East and West as they have shown more interest in the affairs of Afghanistan while Afghanistan has shown no interest in interfering in their internal affairs.  Thus his visit to Herat and Islamabad last week could be given as examples of his efforts to meet these urgent needs.

Karzai, as a new leader also faces a variety of other demands on his talents.  There in Rome lives the former King of Afghanistan who has been asked by the Bonn meeting to return to Afghanistan specifically for heading and opening of a Loya Jirga.  Karzai has been entrusted with the task to see that preparations are made towards that end. Yet the 21-man commission already named, were chosen not by Karzai, but by the United Nations. The commission includes presumably knowledgeable elements from the Afghan society, but they do not enjoy wide recognition by the Afghans.  They are less known in the community and as Karzai was presented with a list of their names he said he had heard maybe only about three members. The workings of the commission remain silent and there is no information about its plans, its progress and its problems if any. There is no further word either about the UN role in the convening of the Loya Jirga or any useful steps taken regarding the Jirga by the Interim Authority led by Karzai. No further description of the actual role of the former King besides leading the Jirga is available.

The Guradian once had this to say about the former King: Zahir Shah was "aloof and inaccessible", a king who"stayed in his palaces and didn't tour the country" and gave out the country's top jobs to members of his own clan, according to Sir John Birch, who was the number two man at the British embassy in Kabul when
the king was overthrown in 1973.

As to the former King of Afghanistan, who according to his son, Mir Wais, will return home before the Afghan New Year that falls on March 21^st, it is reported that he is not after revival of the monarchy.  But Mir Wais said if women and men in Afghanistan wanted reestablishment of the constitutional monarchy the King might comply.  As to what does this mean many people are puzzled. Some predict a scenario for the Loya Jirga where a chieftain would propose that the former King as the best choice of the nation should head the government and perhaps revive the lost Kingdom of the Afghans.  Then, not very much unlike Mohammad Daoud Khan’s Loya Jirga, the King would after an initial hesitation and refusal comply saying he is bowing to the will of the nation.  If this ever happened would Karzai continue to head the government as the prime minister or would he have to submit the position to another person, one from the inner circle of the Rome movement?  And should that be the case the obvious question would remain unanswered.  That question would still be: What is wrong with Karzai?

But Karzai in addition to the aforementioned issues and the formidable task of heading one of the most difficult and confused eras of the contemporary Afghan history has other more urgent issues to face up to.  Feeding the starving Afghans, laying down the foundations of a national army, creating and reviving of a Central Bank and financial system for the country and streamlining reconstruction plans for all departments of his government and especially in the fields of health, education, agriculture and communications to mention a few.  He apparently does not have an elaborate team to help him.  He has been called a charismatic leader by foreign media time and again. One of the examples given for this is an account of his meeting with Mr. Howard the Australian leader in New York. The news was covered by The Sydney Morning Herald of February 2, 2002. The meeting was attended also by Abdullah the Foreign Minister of Afghanistan, Rawan Ferhadi Afghanistan’s representative to the UN, and a little later by Fazal, the new Minister of Public Works in Karzai’s government.  Mr. Fazal is an Afghan Australian who has lived in that country for the past 30 years and ran a clothing company there as well as worked as an immigration agent.  Karzai alluded to the fact that he has an Australian in his cabinet, a matter that was received with great interest by the Australian leader.  However, some discussion antagonizing Australian government procedures, raised by Fazal and Farhadi had almost derailed the otherwise friendly talks.  However, Karzai and Abdullah were able to get the talks back on track. By the end of the meeting, Mr Karzai had lived up to his reviews. The Australians at the meeting could see why he is seen as charismatic. He was carefully inclusive toward his ministers, asking one, "Are you happy with that?" or another, "Is that OK by you?"  As a New York Times headline put it yesterday, this is a man who conducts diplomacy "with flair and a cape".