October 16, 2009 2:57 AM

U.N.: "Widespread Fraud" in Afghan Vote

(AP)  Last Updated 4:16 p.m. ET

The top U.N. official in Afghanistan on Sunday acknowledged "widespread fraud" in the disputed presidential election and rejected allegations from a former deputy that he covered up cheating to smooth the path to victory for President Hamid Karzai.

The remarks by Norwegian diplomat Kai Eide appeared designed to win back respect for both the troubled U.N. mission and the entire election process ahead of a ruling by investigators on whether fraud was extensive enough in the Aug. 20 balloting to require a runoff.

Eide's reputation was tarnished when his deputy Peter Galbraith alleged that the U.N. mission chief downplayed allegations of widespread ballot-stuffing by Karzai's supporters.

Galbraith, the top-ranking American in the U.N. mission, was fired Sept. 30 by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon after the widely publicized dispute.

A U.N.-backed fraud panel is expected to decide this week whether to throw out enough votes to require a runoff between Karzai and his top challenger, Abdullah Abdullah.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Afghanistan

"The very public dispute between the head of the U.N. Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and his deputy - as well as the delay in the issuance of a final U.N. report - has the potential of undermining the Obama Administration's military mission in Afghanistan, the Karzai government, the U.N. Mission, and the U.N. Secretary General himself," said CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk.

"It is like a house of cards: If the election had widespread fraud and the U.N. or the Afghan government are implicated or simply did not know, many other actions will be called into question."

Doubts about the U.N.'s neutrality could throw the panel's rulings into question.

(AP Photo/Toby Talbot, File)
Falk notes that the Secretary General is distancing himself from both the firing of Galbraith (pictured, left, in a 2007 file photo) and the election monitoring, "making the point that the report is not yet complete and the truth will out, and that the decision to fire Galbraith was not based on his political position but rather on 'irreconcilable differences' between the head of the mission and his deputy."

"Fraud took place; no one can deny this," Michele Montas, spokesperson for Secretary General Ban, told CBS News. "It is stated in the latest SG's report to the Security Council and in the speech of his special representative, Kai Eide, at the Council.

"But what is important is that the measures that were put in place to detect fraud have worked, and that the willingness and mechanisms to address the fraud are there," added Montas. "An audit is currently being conducted by the Independent Election Commission and the Electoral Complaint Commission. The process is benefiting from the advice of international experts.

"The existing processes and Afghan bodies need to be given a fair chance to work - these elections are their elections," she said.

Montas added, "The role of the U.N. is a support role; it is to provide technical assistance to the Afghan electoral bodies, the Independent Election Commission and the Electoral Complaints Commission."

Read Excerpts of Galbraith's Letter to U.N. Secretary General (N.Y. Times)

The Obama administration and its international partners had hoped the vote - the first presidential election run by Afghans - would restore legitimacy to a government plagued by weakness and corruption. Instead, widespread allegations of ballot-box stuffing have sullied Karzai's reputation and Galbraith's accusations threaten to undermine the credibility of the U.N. which helped organize the election.

In a separate news conference, Karzai told reporters that "confusion" over election results had been "created by Western elements in our country." He did not elaborate.

During a press conference, Eide said Galbraith's allegations were untrue in some cases and taken out of context in others. Eide was flanked by ambassadors from the United States, Britain and France in a show of international support for the U.N. mission and its embattled leader.

Eide said he could "only say that there was widespread fraud" and that "any specific figure at this time would be pure speculation" until the recount is complete. Eide said Galbraith's allegations against him have "affected the entire election process."

Final results have been delayed by more than a month as a U.N.-backed panel set up as a check on the Afghan-appointed election commission examines complaints and suspicious votes. Though preliminary tallies show Karzai winning with about 54 percent, enough Karzai ballots are suspect that the voiding of fraudulent votes could drop him below the 50 percent threshold needed to avoid a runoff.

Eide said he remains "committed to the process" and pointed to the ongoing fraud investigations as proof that systems set up to catch cheating are working.

Last week, Galbraith said he was sticking by his allegations. He accused the United Nations of failing to exercise its responsibility to oversee the Afghan elections, adding that "the fraud that took place in Afghanistan was preventable."

Four U.N. staffers who worked under Galbraith have resigned over the dispute, U.N. spokesman Aleem Siddique said.

Among other things, Galbraith complained that polling stations were allowed to open in areas that were insecure, raising the likelihood of fraud. Eide said military operations were launched in a bid to secure to open as many stations as possible.

Eide said that closing such stations would have denied a large number of people the opportunity to vote and created "an important element of potential instability in the country."

Many polling stations believed affected by fraud were in areas of the Taliban-controlled south where turnout was low.

Eide denied that he had told U.N. staffers not to pass on credible information about ballot-stuffing or low-to-nonexistent turnout. However, he said reports from second- or third-hand sources were not reported because they did not appear credible.

"Some of these allegations are based on private conversations whilst he was a guest in my home for two months," Eide said. "My view is that private discussions around the dinner table remain just that: private."

Eide said both he and the U.N. mission have suffered from the accusations, and that the charges have also "heightened the temperature" of discussions about elections, making it harder to convince people that the process will be fair.

Once the election results become clear, President Barack Obama is expected to complete a review of Afghan strategy and decide whether to accept a recommendation by his top commander here, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for up to 40,000 more troops.

Among the options under review is a plan to maintain U.S. troop numbers at their current levels and shift the focus to missile strikes and special operations against al Qaeda leaders, including those sheltering in neighboring Pakistan.

In the latest fighting, U.S. and Afghan forces stormed a mountainside compound in eastern Afghanistan before dawn Sunday and killed more than a dozen militants in a compound used by an al Qaeda figure, according to the U.S. military.
By Associated Press Writers Rahim Faiez and Heidi Vogt; AP writer Tomoko A. Hosaka contributed to this report from Tokyo

© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 15 Comments
by millrm October 12, 2009 12:14 AM EDT
If President Obama is not going after the Taliban as well as AlQaida then you might as well pack up the troops and send them home now,because you can not please everyone. If you do not let General McChrystal and General Petraeys have their 50,000 more troops and let them do their boarder counterinsurgency then the mission will fail and you are condeming more lives to death and with guns that over heat do to not being able to take to much rapid use in the field like the m4 which is a smaller and lighter version of the m16. You might as well arrest Bin Ladens family here in the U.S. and freeze their assets that they own here in the U.S. untill they give up. Because you are giving up the fight in a different way. The only other way is to give financial,military and technical support like Bin Laden is now to win them over and not abandoned them after the war is over like we did before with Bin Laden. The Jihadists and the Pashtnwaliwill be the hardest to convince. You have to let them keep their centuries Pashturn Tribal codethat mandates protectionfor all fellow muslims. That is a hard one to beat. Unless you can offer a simular deal to them.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 October 12, 2009 3:56 AM EDT
The "mission" failed even before it started, because it was based on lies.

You want to pay for the continuation of that lie? Estimates are up around 50 billion, most of it going to corruption.

When the bill comes due, won't the war mongers be the loudest opponents to raising the taxes to pay for it?
by ibsteve2u October 11, 2009 10:13 PM EDT
"It is like a house of cards: If the election had widespread fraud and the U.N. or the Afghan government are implicated or simply did not know, many other actions will be called into question."

Not good; when politicians admit to a house of cards, too often it is a precursor to some joker telling a whopper.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 October 12, 2009 3:52 AM EDT
The fraud was known and covered up by the UN, they are already implicated.

1.5 million fake votes, you think the people don't know?
by jefleshman October 11, 2009 12:59 PM EDT
The Afghan Constitution called for an election this year. It was not someone elses doing like the UN or a single head of state to blame.

As per the Afghan Constitution the President is elected for a term of five years. This year was an election year.

I wish people would stop trying to place blame on people or countries. It is completely expected that a country in its governments infancy would expect challenges in free elections. Sometimes exercising the process is better than expecting perfect results. I agree we have to be realistic about expectations. We have to keep in mind this is only their second election for the president. They are learning and it will not change overnight. There were positive steps forward as well. We have to keep that in mind too. Always improving on an imperfect system is the best approach. Because there is no perfect form of government.

I wonder if now there will be a runoff election with more UN IEC oversight against Abdullah Abdullah and Pres Karzai?

Just my thoughts. Thank you for reading.
Reply to this comment
by finkfust October 11, 2009 4:21 PM EDT
"I wonder if now there will be a runoff election with more UN IEC oversight against Abdullah Abdullah and Pres Karzai?"

Don't you have an opinion about whether there should be?
by finkfust October 12, 2009 4:14 AM EDT
brianbwb-2009 - jefleshman is only giving the line he's ordered to give by his superior officer. He's not very smart and he actually doesn't get it, but then he's not required to.
by stuart-johns2 October 11, 2009 12:37 PM EDT
the U.N. mission in Afghanistan acknowledged Sunday that there was "widespread fraud" in the August presidential election but refused to give specifics or lay blame to avoid influencing the ongoing recount.

=====================

They are avoiding specifics so as not to influence the recount? Of course, international reporting like this could never influence the count, right? I guess just reporting that there was wides[read fraud in non-influencing.
Reply to this comment
by fss2009 October 11, 2009 4:26 PM EDT
The only way to influence the recount is to lie about the recount. You cannot influence votes that have already been cast.
by stuart-johns2 October 11, 2009 5:48 PM EDT
Of course you can! That's what's called voter fraud! Geeeesh

Did you read the story? Did you even understand what I said????

Man. Take a pill already.
by zamorin44 October 11, 2009 11:16 AM EDT
It is plain stupid in the first place to expect the Afghan election to be anything other than fradulent.The country has no experience with democracy.It has a long history of deep rooted violence based on tribes,ethnicities,clans,war lords and what not.And it is in the midst of a protracted war fuelled by internal forces like the Taliban and the external forces like Pakistan and the Western countries.Is it reasonable at all even to hold elections in such a highly volatile situation?Or just because Obama or somebody else wanted it did they expect a miraculously orderly and fair electin inspite of such a disruptice situation?
Reply to this comment
by bubbadubba October 11, 2009 11:15 AM EDT
Those oil companies will do whatever it takes to get that pipeline they want.
War, killing, voter fraud, it doesn't matter.
The oil companies and the Wall Street traders always get their way.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 October 12, 2009 4:04 AM EDT
They will even kill our president if he tries to stand in their way.

This is why he is still thinking about it, he knows it is BS, otherwise he wouldn't need to think about the issue.

And the right wing suckers, for their own reasons will declare that day a redneck holiday.
by underdogus09 October 11, 2009 11:01 AM EDT
U.N.: "Widespread Fraud" in Afghan Vote
Democracy will never come to Afghanistan through the barrel of a gun, or from the cluster bombs dropped by foreign forces.
Reply to this comment
See all 15 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook