MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Dmitry Kosyrev) - Hamid Karzai's second presidential inauguration took place as planned, with tough security measures and in the presence of high-ranking officials from the United States, Tajikistan, Iran, Russia, Germany and Lithuania, among others.
Importantly, at a meeting with the re-elected president a couple of hours before the ceremony, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke about Moscow's readiness to render economic and moral support to Afghanistan.
During Karzai's first presidency, the majority of Russian analysts described him as an American puppet whose power was limited to Kabul. Cooperating with a country which thrived on drugs and was actually occupied by U.S. troops was considered pointless. Like in Iraq, Americans were the only ones who could get contracts.
However, now the situation has changed or is about to change. Russia is only just beginning to work in Afghanistan. For example, it is planning to rebuild the once famous House of Science and Culture, which will incorporate a health center for children.
Change is in the air because during his second term Karzai may be a different president. He has suddenly become a more influential figure with all due reservations.
This change was caused by the mistakes made by the Obama administration. The August 20 elections were followed by hysteria of the majority of the European and American public. They were seen as fake elections of a corrupt president due to Washington's failure to ensure certain standards. However, the voters in Afghanistan and their neighbors had a different view of these elections.
Under Karzai, a relatively prosperous urban community was restored in Kabul and some other cities. These people understand what elections are all about. The majority of other Afghans live in conditions of tribal democracy. It was important for them to see that Karzai was the strongest candidate. Hence, he should remain in power, despite the position's limitations. This is how the public reasons in dozens of countries, primarily in the Greater Middle East, regardless of whether the elections there are "real" or not.
Moreover, foreigners, above all Americans, were trying to challenge the elections and compel Karzai to hold a second round, which is humiliating and intolerable for any leader. But Karzai defeated America. It looked small when his rival Abdullah Abdullah refused to take part in the second round. This victory enhanced Karzai's prestige.
The facts, which surfaced on the eve of Karzai's second inauguration, largely explain why the Obama administration is so confused. It cannot decide what to do about Afghanistan, especially after the elections. By and large, American analysts say that the Karzai regime is corrupt, and for this reason nothing can be done about that country. Europe's attitude is pretty much the same.
Americans are charging Ibrahim Adel, Afghanistan's mining minister, with accepting a $20-million bribe for awarding a contract for a copper mining project to the wrong party, which means to somebody other than the United States.
The contract is worth $3 billion. Copper and other natural resources can well replace the opium poppy as the foundation of the Afghan economy. And yet Afghanistan has sold one of its key industries to a Chinese company.
Kabul insists that China left America behind in an honest tender, by offering better terms. The Americans claim that the Afghan minister tacitly told the Chinese about the American proposal, and they immediately proposed better terms. Everyone who has experience of taking part in tenders can imagine this situation.
Now it is easier to understand why America is so critical of the corrupt Afghan regime, and why Transparency International has ranked it as the second most corrupt nation of the world (after record-breaking Somalia).
It transpires that Karzai is an astute ruler, who is trying to gain a foothold abroad. Incidentally, this happened during the last months of George W. Bush presidency.
Now it is more obvious why the Obama administration has found itself in a difficult position and cannot decide whether it should send 10,000 or 40,000 of American troops to Afghanistan.
Should American soldiers lose their lives there for the Chinese to be awarded key contracts? But, on the other hand, why should they sacrifice their lives in Afghanistan at all?
When Bush said that in a similar war in Iraq America was fighting for democracy and honest elections, his words were perceived as utmost cynicism, all the more so considering how the elections were held there. But even Obama's officials cannot say out loud that democracy is not an absolute answer to all problems in Afghanistan and the rest of the world.
Unless Americans and Europeans learn to be rational about their democratic religion and stop dismissing any discourse on this subject as sacrilege, they will increasingly lose their influence in the world, like they are now losing it in Afghanistan.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
