Hamid Karzai will have to mobilise all his considerable charms this week when he goes before a sceptical audience to plead the case for £25 billion in aid for Afghanistan.

The Afghan President is a past master at wooing the international community and still retains the loyalty of key leaders. Laura Bush, the US President's wife, even made the hazardous trek to Kabul this week by military transport aircraft to offer her support for his cause.

He has a good case, too. He will argue before world leaders assembled in Paris tomorrow that the international community has a moral obligation and a self-interest in helping to stabilise his country.

The West abandoned Afghanistan once before, with disastrous consequences. The country was engulfed in a civil war, became a failed state and was ruled by a brutal Islamic militant regime, which in turn provided a safe haven for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Nobody wants to see the clock turned back to September 2001.

A few years ago his argument would have overwhelmed his audience. But today Mr Karzai is facing unprecedented public and private criticism from politicians, soldiers and officials in the West, who are beginning to wonder whether he is part of the solution or part of the problem.

Billions of pounds have been spent on Afghanistan over the past seven years and 836 foreign troops have been killed trying to stabilise and rebuild the country.

There are some improvements to show for the investment. Kabul is once again a bustling capital and life has returned to normal in many provinces of northern and western Afghanistan. The Army is being rebuilt and there are hopes that one day it will be strong enough to protect the country.

But the list of failures is just as long. The Government in Kabul has not extended its authority much beyond the capital. The police, the backbone of Afghanistan's future security, are a shambles. Corruption is rampant throughout the Government and opium production is at record levels. In both cases, Western officials believe that senior members of the Government, including Cabinet ministers, provincial governors and others close to the President are directly implicated.

Here Mr Karzai stands accused of a serious failure of leadership. No drugs baron or warlord has ever been arrested. There is little accountability for his ministers and governors. Afghans complain that he has become remote and rarely ventures beyond the presidential compound.

Outside attempts to tackle the leadership failures, by appointing Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon as “super-envoy” to co-ordinate the political, military and aid operations, were blocked by Mr Karzai this year. He rightly saw the move as a challenge to his authority and insisted that he alone had the authority to lead, as democratically elected President.

That is true, but foreign donors and troop contributors also have a say in what happens. For now Mr Karzai remains the only serious contender to lead his country. While he has the support of President Bush he is unassailable.

But next year he faces re-election. There will be a new president in the White House and greater pressure to rethink the strategy in Afghanistan.

As Mr Karzai is only too keenly aware, a year is a long time in Afghan politics.

Times Recommends

• UN may halt 400-year-old 'freedom of the seas'
• Where the Rosetta belongs can’t be set in stone
• Gas deal on hold, but Ukraine may pay in the end