Kabul’s K Street Project

Afghanistan’s US ambassador knows that influence comes with a steep price tag in DC. Read his confidential memo pleading for more lobbyists.

Photo illustration by Steve Aquino.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Help! I’m being outgunned on K Street! That’s the message Afghanistan’s ambassador to the United States is sending home, according to an internal government memo (PDF) obtained by Mother Jones. His complaint signals that Kabul’s man in Washington has learned a fundamental lesson about influence in the nation’s capital: With few paid lobbyists to push Afghanistan’s agenda, the void is being filled by other regional players, like Pakistan and India, both of which spend millions of dollars each year to ensure that they’re heard in Washington’s corridors of power.

In his memo to Afghanistan’s finance minister, Omar Zakhiwal, which is dated April 21 and marked “confidential,” Ambassador Said Tayeb Jawad surveys the competition. Pakistan, he writes, employs nine American lobbying firms, including two “that alone represent and promote President Asif Ali Zardari’s interests in Washington.” According to the ambassador’s missive, these include Locke Lord Strategies-LP, which since May 2008 has been on retainer from the Pakistan government for more than $100,000 per month, and JWT Asiatic and Hill & Knowlton, which together collect a monthly payment exceeding $100,000. All told, according to Jawad’s estimate, Islamabad spent at least $3 million on Washington lobbyists in 2008 alone. Explaining how he has been outspent, he cites a January 2009 report in the Washington Post stating that India’s lobbyists successfully persuaded the Obama administration to remove Kashmir from Richard Holbrooke’s portfolio as the White House’s special adviser on Pakistan and Afghanistan. In hopes his government might learn from the example, Jawad suggests that Kabul needs “to give serious consideration to allocating financial resources an on annual basis so that—like Pakistan and India and so many other countries—we are also able to effect pro-Afghanistan policy and legislation in Washington.”

After I obtained a copy of the memo, I met with Jawad at the embassy, a redbrick mansion in Washington’s posh Kalorama neighborhood. The ambassador, in a neatly pressed blue suit and yellow-striped shirt, welcomed me into his second-floor office, where we sat around a small table and drank Afghan mint tea. Had his plea for more resources had any effect, I asked? No, he said, adding that Kabul “doesn’t know exactly how Washington operates…They ask, ‘Is this legal, to buy influence?’ Yes, everybody’s doing it!” Jawad told me that he doesn’t even have enough money to properly entertain embassy guests. “People like you,” he said. “If you are interested, I can give you a book on Afghanistan, but nothing else.”

The government of Afghanistan is not completely naive when it comes to the Washington power game. In March 2002, for example, the country’s provisional government hired DC firms Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand and DLA Piper to represent its interests. Both initially agreed to work pro bono. Among the early tasks was to relocate Afghanistan’s diplomatic presence from a small rented office in downtown Washington to the embassy’s former and current refurbished home, which during the Taliban years had fallen into extreme disrepair. It was “literally a shambles,” recalls DLA Piper’s Lawrence Levinson, with sensitive government papers strewn over a waterlogged floor in the embassy’s basement safe room. Rebuilding the country’s diplomatic know-how also required some remedial training, including a “Washington tutorial” presented to Ishaq Shahryar, Afghanistan’s US ambassador from 2002 to 2003, on “how you get things done in town,” says Levinson. The relationship grew from there and continues today. In July 2007, DLA Piper finally negotiated a small monthly retainer of $10,000, but even that has been a stretch for the embassy. “Soon I’m not going to be able to get it,” Jawad told me. “There’s no money…The budget of the embassy is pre-9/11. There was never any substantive increase.” 

Why hasn’t Kabul spent more on K Street? According to Mahmood Karzai, eldest brother of Afghan president Hamid Karzai, the Afghan government lacks the savvy.  “Unfortunately, the Afghan government is not clever enough to hire lobbyists,” he explained. Meanwhile, he said, his brother’s opponents have spent millions in Washington aimed at destabilizing Afghanistan and undermining the Karzai family. Karzai claims that media stories repeating that his brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is a drug smuggler have been ginned up by DC operatives working for enemies of Afghanistan. But he doesn’t say which lobbyists and offers no proof of his charge.

As for Jawad, when asked how he feels about Mahmood Karzai’s accusations, he seemed uncomfortable discussing it, but deferred to the president’s brother. “He is inside Afghanistan, so he knows these things better than I do,” he said. “Lobbying is not limited to the embassies. Different entities have their own lobbyists—political parties and individual institutions. It is not unusual.” But as for whether Pakistan’s army of Washington lobbyists is working to destabilize the Karzai government, “I don’t have the details of what they do,” Jawad said. “That is confidential information between the attorneys and their clients.”

Correction appended: This story states that Afghanistan has been represented by two lobbying firms: Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand and DLA Piper. In fact, Verner Liipfert was the name of the firm in 2002 before it merged with DLA Piper. Furthermore, a representative from Hill & Knowlton says that Ambassador Jawad got it wrong, claiming that the firm has not represented Pakistan since the earthquake there in 2005.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate