Lord Ashdown’s appointment as the UN special envoy in Afghanistan has been blocked by President Karzai after he met a series of Western leaders in Davos, diplomats said last night.

President Karzai objected to the former Liberal Democrat leader after Lord Ashdown, a former Marine who headed international efforts in Bosnia, insisted on far-reaching powers.

The Afghan leader made clear his intention to block Lord Ashdown at meetings with Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, and David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, during the World Economic Forum in the Swiss resort, one source said.

Mr Karzai also raised his reservations about Lord Ashdown with Gordon Brown in another meeting yesterday, according to a Western diplomat. Mr Brown is understood to have told the Afghan leader that Britain was not trying to push Lord Ashdown on him, explaining that it was a United Nations appointment.

Immediately after meeting Mr Brown, Mr Karzai was “grabbed” by Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, for a one-on-one discussion.

Lord Ashdown had been the top candidate to become a so-called “superenvoy” to serve as overall co-ordinator of international aid and political efforts in Afghanistan, where Nato troops are battling a Taleban insurgency. But one well-placed diplomat said last night that, in light of Mr Karzai’s opposition, Mr Ashdown’s candidacy was now “toast”. Lord Ashdown refused to confirm that he was out of the running. “I’ve made no comment on this, and am not going to start now,” he told The Times last night.

Other possible candidates include the British General John McColl, the Nato Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who served as the first commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan in 2002 and later acted as Prime Minister Tony Blair’s special envoy to the country.

The UN, however, will find it difficult to accept a serving general as its top civilian representative in Afghanistan. Russia is said to be pushing for a Turkish official.

The latest snub came as British officials were already fuming over Mr Karzai’s criticism of the role of British troops in Afghanistan. In an outburst to journalists on Thursday, the Afghan leader claimed that British forces had failed in their mission in Helmand province.

“Without British troops in Helmand province there would be no control over the influence of the Taleban in the south, and no control over the Taleban’s exploitation of the poppy,” said one senior army officer who has served in Helmand.

Patrick Mercer, Conservative MP for Newark and former commanding officer of the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment, which has served recently in Helmand, told The Times: “On behalf of the nine dead friends from my former battalion, killed in Helmand, I resent what President Karzai said.”

The Afghan leader claimed that Helmand had been under Kabul’s control before the British troops arrived on the scene, and that the province was now overrun with Taleban.

However, Mr Mercer said: “Karzai’s writ did not run at all in Helmand province until the British troops arrived. Our Armed Forces have shed blood and died while facing up to his enemies.”

A total of 87 British troops have died in Afghanistan since 2001 — 61 of them killed in action — and Britain has spent £1.6 billion on its military campaign there.

Asked if he would accept that the British presence allowed the Taleban back in, the Prime Minister’s spokesman replied: “Of course we wouldn’t accept that.” He said: “We are working alongside the Afghan Government in order to drive out the Taleban from Helmand. Our strength in Afghanistan has been to work with the Afghan Government and to extend the authority of the Afghan Government throughout the province to allow economic and political development. It is to that aim that our Armed Forces have suffered losses and shown great bravery and determination.”

The new tension has been caused by differences between the Kabul Government and the British troops on the ground over Mr Karzai’s choice of local officials to run the Helmand administration and the security forces.

President Karzai expressed particular frustration at the way he claimed the British had forced him to get rid of Sher Muhammad Akhunzada, his chosen and trusted governor in Helmand.

His deployment is yet another signal of Mr Karzai’s lack of faith in British policy in southern Afghanistan and his belief that warlords can succeed where governance fails.

The senior army officer said: “The trouble is, we’re looking at governance with Western eyes and President Karzai is looking at it with Afghan eyes, so perhaps in his view everything was fine before the British troops were sent to Helmand. I don’t know why Karzai has made these comments. It’s probably for his own political reasons, but he knows that Britain is committed to Afghanistan for the long term.”

Counting the cost

7,800 British troops deployed in Afghanistan

£738m spent by British Armed Forces in Afghanistan 2006-07

18% of British people surveyed last year thought Britain was winning the war

90% of heroin sold in Britain comes from Afghanistan

Sources: Times archives

Times Recommends

• Both sides blame US for worsening relations
• Stieg Larsson: losing the plot over his cash
• Odd creature paralysed by incompatible parts