On being shown the door

Well, take this Voice Of America story:

U.N. officials say the top American serving in the U.N. mission to Afghanistan will not return to his post, following a dispute over how to handle fraud allegations in the country's disputed presidential election. ...in an e-mail to the BBC, Galbraith said he has not been fired as far as he knows.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon fired the top American official at the U.N. mission in Afghanistan on Wednesday after a widely publicized dispute with his boss over how to deal with widespread fraud charges in the country's presidential election.

...and you've got a glimpse of the delicacy involved in international relations as practiced in war zones. Back to the AP:

Galbraith told the Associated Press he was "surprised" by the decision and worried "insufficient attention was given to how this might impact in Afghanistan, or on the reputation of the United Nations."

"I find it quite astonishing that the U.N. would remove an official for being concerned about fraud in a U.N.-supported and U.N.-funded election," he said.

In a statement, Ban thanked Galbraith "for his hard work and professional dedication" and recognized his "important contributions."

Who advocates what? Answers to that are even less clear. If election runner-up Abdullah Abdullah is to be believed "Galbraith was pushing for things to move quickly and pushed for ballot papers to be ordered for a runoff, if needed". By itself that doesn't seem to rise to a firing offense requiring the attention of the Secretary-General - unless the UN is even more unforgiving and authoritarian than even its harshest critics would claim.

From all indications, however, on-going corruption as immediate concern seems to weigh heavier on the minds of the Obama administration than it does on the United Nations or people of Afghanistan - who would certainly like it stopped but express a much more urgent need of attention to issues like 30 Afghan civilians killed as packed bus hits bomb outside Kandahar. Perhaps connecting them to the services provided by their government might be more doable from their point of view once that sort of thing is less so.

And while we can declare corruption our own exit door, perhaps we'd do well to remember that our real options aren't to support Hamid Karzai or not, but whether to let those who set that bomb once again become the Government of Afghanistan.

From what I've heard, at least they don't tolerate corruption. (Perhaps they'll even make the buses run on time.)

(All links via the Dawn Patrol.)

Update: Well then, here's another detail -

The United Nations fired its No. 2 official in Afghanistan on Wednesday after the diplomat, Peter W. Galbraith, wrote a scathing letter accusing the head of the mission here of concealing election fraud that benefited the campaign of the incumbent President, Hamid Karzai.

The story adds "With American officials increasingly accepting the idea that Mr. Karzai will be the next president despite a large number of well-documented irregularities in the election, Mr. Galbraith's stance put him at odds with both the Obama administration and the United Nations."

But we can add wrote angry letter to threw down napkin and left dinner party in a huff on the list of things we've done to fix corruption in Afghanistan.

And: could we add "went through a big scary show of 'rethinking our strategy' immediately after the elections by way of applying pressure"? Could be, I suppose. I can't be the only one who's entertained thoughts that many of the various events of the past couple of weeks are primarily intended to send Karzai a message. Whether reason #1 or not, that's certainly part of it and would explain a lot. Maybe that's worked to a degree - maybe that's why American officials are "increasingly accepting". Negotiations would be very delicate indeed if that were the case. Such times are when men of admirable, unimpeachable, and uncompromising moral certainty are best utilized elsewhere.

And another thought... would Galbraith tell "the Associated Press he was "surprised" by the decision" if he had actually been fired for writing "a scathing letter accusing the head of the mission here of concealing election fraud"? Or is the New York Times adding an extra dash of drama to the story?

Here's an excerpt from the letter the NYT has decided the public can see. What I find interesting is that according to Galbraith "Ambassadors from the US, UK, EU and NATO" all were made aware of "the greatest risk to the Afghan elections" the month prior to the elections - but any action they may have taken to prevent it is not included in the excerpt.

In coordination with the Ambassadors from the US, UK, EU and NATO, I pressed the Afghan Ministers of Defense and Interior either to secure these polling centers or to close them. The Afghan Ministers, whose continued tenure in office was to depend on the fraud, complained about my intervention and Kai ordered me to drop the matter.

What happened to the ambassadors? They were there at the start of the paragraph.

Here's an account of Galbraith's initial assignment to Afghanistan. My take away? It's a good thing the world loves us now.

Final quote from the letter:

Shortly after the elections, Kai told President Karzai that "I am biased" in your favor and that "those who are out to get you are also out to get me." When I asked Kai about this, he explained that being biased did not mean he was supporting Karzai and I accept that explanation. But, I am not sure President Karzai sees it that way. Kai also told me the "those" referred to Ambassador Holbrooke.

Maybe more civilian help isn't what we need after all.

Update - More here

- via email, facebook, twitter, etc.