Music is Still the Weapon
World Beat
Hope isn't lost for those who believe that art can transform our world
World Beat
Hope isn't lost for those who believe that art can transform our world
Commentary
Activists, both in and out of Honduras, continue to work for justice.
Op-Ed
The UN donors' conference is an opportunity to help Haitians rebuild in a manner that respects their humanity and enables them to become more productive.
In Our Circles
For a country in which ultra-nationalism was for so long a problem, the weakness of nationalism in contemporary Japan is puzzling.
The internationally supported reconstruction and nation-building effort in Afghanistan can boast many successes in the period since the Taliban's collapse in November 2001. Two million Afghan refugees have returned to the country; three million Afghan children, particularly girls, have resumed school; a new currency, the Afghani, has been established; and a central government, chosen on a democratic basis, has grown more assertive and effective with each passing day.
In spite of these achievements, which would have been the stuff of fantasy three years ago under the repressive rule of the Taliban, a security vacuum has emerged across the country that threatens to undermine the entire nation-building effort. The resurgence of warlordism and the persistence of insurgency activities by the remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda have fostered insecurity and obstructed the reconstruction process.
The fundamental dilemma facing the international community is how to advance reconstruction amid conditions of political and social insecurity and a continuing low-intensity war. To solve this dilemma, international support to the Afghan Transitional Administration (ATA), whether it be political, economic or military in nature, should be devised and channeled with the clear objective of addressing its causes: warlordism and spoiler groups. Regrettably, donor action to confront these underlying causes, most notably U.S. military intervention, has in many cases exacerbated insecurity.
Equally disconcerting and detrimental has been donor inaction on a number of critical areas, including security sector reform, which has progressed slowly. Consequently, it is important that donor support be redesigned and expanded to make it more efficacious. By promoting institution-building and dialogue among key power-brokers at the political level; increasing and more effectively disbursing aid at the economic level; and assisting the reform of the ATA's national security apparatus and deploying peacekeepers at the military level, the international community can overcome the present insecurity impasse.
This FPIF policy report provides recommendations on how to refocus and reinvigorate donor support in the political, economic and military spheres, to better equip the ATA to confront insecurity and its causes. It aims to offer draft blueprint for the reform and revitalization of international donor policy and practice in Afghanistan.
Regional actors must cease all support for sub-state actors--individual parties, tribes, and warlords--within Afghanistan. A significant step toward achieving this goal was achieved with the signing of the Kabul Declaration on Good-neighbourly Relations, a pledge of non-interference by Afghanistan's immediate neighbours: Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, China, and Iran, on 22 December 2002.
Despite previous assurances from most states in the region that they would respect Afghanistan's sovereignty following the Taliban's collapse, external interference continued unabated in 2002. Russia pledged U.S.$100 million in military aid to the powerful warlord and Defence Minister, General Mohammed Fahim; Iran continues to give cash and military support to Ismail Khan, a powerful warlord who controls most of western Afghanistan; and Uzbekistan provides Uzbek strongman Rashid Dostum with aid and a close protection unit.Alarmingly, India and Pakistan appear to be using Afghanistan as a surrogate battlefield in their continuing conflict over Kashmir. India provides Afghanistan with military, economic, and political support and has opened consulates in several cities around the country, including Kandahar and Jalalabad, near the Pakistani border. Many analysts argue that India is attempting to open up a new front in its conflict with Pakistan.
For its part, Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) is said to be providing sanctuary and arms to the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Hekmatyar's Hizb-I-Islami party. According to U.S. Military Spokespersons, 90% of the attacks on U.S. forces emanate from Pakistan, despite Pakistan's pledge to crack down on cross border insurgency activity under the auspices of the War on Terror. It appears that Pakistan is playing a double game, which must be halted. It is essential that the UN and the international community monitor such developments and compel regional states to uphold their pledges of non-interference.
The April 2002 Geneva conference on security sector reform developed a comprehensive plan to confront the imposing problems of instability and insecurity that emerged after the fall of the Taliban. The security sector reform agenda rests on five pillars, each of which was assigned to a donor nation for supervision: Military Reform (U.S.); Police Reform (Germany); Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration of Ex-combatants (Japan); Counter-Narcotics (UK); and Judicial Training (Italian). Progress on these areas in 2002 was generally much slower than expected. The process must be reinvigorated, as it provides a means to construct a sustainable and accountable security apparatus, a prerequisite for peace and stability.
By the beginning of 2003, the Afghan National Army (ANA) numbered 1,700-1,800. Hence, for every trained soldier in the national army, there are at least 100 armed men in local militia throughout the country. At the current rate of graduation, it will take up to 25 years for the ANA to meet its agreed force size of 70,000. Further complicating the process is the high rate of desertion, which is running at approximately 40%. Low pay, poor food and living conditions, and confusion regarding the length and terms of service impelled many graduates to return home following basic training.
Salaries for pubic servants in Afghanistan are conspicuously low. The average salary earned by Afghan civil servants is U.S.$22 per month; some cabinet ministers make no more than U.S.$40 per month. This induces corruption, makes it difficult to attract qualified Afghans from the Diaspora, and fosters a brain drain, whereby skilled Afghans leave the ATA for higher paying jobs with international NGOs and UN agencies. Accordingly, the international community must funnel more funds directly to the ATA. Just 16% of funds for 2002, roughly U.S.$87 million went directly to the ATA--the rest flowed through UN agencies and NGOs.17 The ATA should be the driving force behind reconstruction, not the myriad of NGOs and international organizations that have descended upon Kabul. If, as the World Bank asserts, the ATA lacks the capacity to handle and distribute such a high volume of funds, then it is the responsibility of the UN and the donor community to build that capacity.
The new regime will be unable to solidify its position in the country if the people perceive it to be an impotent bystander in the reconstruction effort. A peace dividend must be provided to gain the confidence of the populace. The dissolution of the Afghan Support Group (ASG), a loose organization established by donor states to coordinate the distribution of aid, was a positive step in this regard. The ASG has handed over its responsibilities to a streamlined consultative group based in Kabul and led by Afghan Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani. This will give the ATA a stronger voice in the aid disbursement process.
In terms of aid allocation, the United States has been one of the most generous and efficient donor states, delivering more than U.S.$350 million dollars in aid during 2002, 17% more than what it pledged at the Tokyo donors conference.In response to the ardent appeals of the ATA and international relief agencies, the U.S. has indicated that it will increase this nonmilitary spending to over U.S.$400 million in 2003. However, the gross disparity between U.S. military and nonmilitary spending illustrates that it can do much more to advance reconstruction. Each month the United States spends an estimated U.S.$1 billion on military operations and an average of $25 million in aid. The U.S. should take steps to narrow this considerable gap for development and reconstruction rather than military force is the key to stabilizing Afghanistan.
Even if the donor community fulfills its aid pledges, more international assistance to Afghanistan will be required to stimulate the country's rehabilitation. At the January 2002 Tokyo Donors Conference, donors pledged U.S.$5.25 billion for Afghan reconstruction between 2002-2006; however, the World Bank estimates that U.S.$10-12 billion dollars will be needed for this effort during the same five-year span. A comparison of the average per capita level of aid distribution in several post conflict settings further illustrates the discrepancy between the needs of Afghanistan and the response of the international community. In Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, and East Timor, an average of U.S.$250 per person, per year of aid was donated. In contrast, the international community has pledged U.S.$42 per person, per year of aid to Afghanistan over a period of five years.
There are indications that the aid community may be willing to rectify this glaring funding inequity. At a December 2002 donor conference in Oslo, donors pledged U.S.$1.2 billion in fresh aid for 2003 and another U.S.$800 million is expected. If all the pledges materialize, the flow of aid will exceed last year's flow by one third.
Peace building and reconstruction is a long-term process that could take generations to complete. Accordingly, long-term aid commitments from donors are essential. In spite of this reality, only six donors have committed to five years or more. There is no short-term remedy or panacea for Afghanistan; the psychological and physical scars left from 23 years of civil war will take decades to heal. The International community must recognize this fact and commit to long-term investments in the country's future.
Job creation is the key to removing the dependence of Afghans on the warlords. Serving in a militia has, in the case of many Afghans, been the only option for employment. An increase in donor-supported investment projects would have an enormous impact in creating employment for the multitudes of unemployed Afghans, among them ex-combatants. However, the delivery of major investment projects, such as road construction and agricultural rehabilitation, has, thus far, been slow. Eventually, increased economic opportunities will make it difficult for warlords to keep their forces together. Attractive alternatives for those under arms will undermine the armies of the warlords. Therefore it is imperative the international community promote the establishment of large-scale labor-intensive reconstruction projects to create these jobs.
The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was inaugurated on 20 December 2001 by UN Security Council Resolution 1386. Composed of approximately 4,800 troops drawn from 19 different countries, ISAF's mandate is to provide security for Kabul and its immediate environs. The success of ISAF in stabilizing Kabul has fostered the view that the security environment across Afghanistan would be greatly improved if ISAF were expanded outside the capital.
Policymakers and observers have offered numerous plans for ISAF's expansion. One scenario would see it deployed to major urban centers outside the capital; forces in these regional hubs could maintain law and order, safeguard aid workers, facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid, and carry out reconstruction. There are varying estimates as to how many additional troops would be required for this expanded mission, ranging from 5,000 to 30,000. A deployment of approximately 1,000 troops to each major population center would likely be sufficient.
Germany, which assumed joint command of ISAF with the Dutch on 10 February 2003, proposed at a 8 February 2003 international security conference in Munich that the command of ISAF be handed over to NATO. Although German Defense Minister Peter Struck did not express a desire to see the force expanded beyond Kabul, under the NATO framework this option would surely become more credible and feasible. ISAF's expansion could give the ATA flexibility and room for maneuver to confront recalcitrant warlords and extend the writ of the ATA into the provinces. While this would entail a considerable cost for international donors--one they have shown an unwillingness to incur--it increasingly appears that such an investment is essential.
The military strategy adopted by the United States in post-Taliban Afghanistan has been problematic in a number of areas. In particular, its solicitation of military support from certain warlords has adversely impacted the ATA and the reconstruction process. U.S. engagement is crucial for the success of the nation-building effort; however, U.S. military strategy must be harmonized with the peace-building and development objectives of the ATA to ensure that the long-term interests of the Afghan people are not sacrificed for short-term military expediency in the War on Terror.
The United States must cease providing unconditional support to Afghan warlords. This policy has prompted many warlords to openly defy the ATA. In particular, they must cease training and equipping anti-Al Qaeda units, utilized as U.S. proxies in the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The government in Kabul has not been involved or consulted in the establishment and operation of these units, which remain loyal to regional warlords.
Developments in early 2003 demonstrate that the cessation of U.S. support to certain warlords could compel them to acquiesce to the central government. Padsha Khan Zadran, one of the few warlords who refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Karzai government, has been among the most destabilizing figures in Afghanistan during the past year. He was emboldened by the patronage and support he received from the U.S.; his militia was trained, equipped, and utilized by the U.S. military in joint operations. However, late in 2002 the U.S. ceased all material support to Zadran and members of his militia were excluded from U.S.-led operations.
The U.S. subsequently detained many of Zadran's subcommanders, including his nephew, who was allegedly under the employ of the CIA. Deprived of his superpower patron, the ATA was able to overrun Zadran's forces in his strongholds of Gardez and Khost, capturing the two cities. Zadran's men, who now number no more than 500, have been relegated to manning roadblocks outside these cities. The emasculated Zadran, who cannot pay his troops without U.S aid, has allegedly entered talks with the government about a rapprochement that could bring him to Kabul as a member of the government. This is a stunning breakthrough for a government that has been struggling to forge a policy to deal with the warlords. The key to its success was U.S. pressure; it clearly demonstrates that concerted U.S. military and political pressure could bring the warlords to heel.
Over 8,000 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan under the auspices of the war on terrorism. The resiliency of the Taliban and Al Qaeda poses a significant dilemma to the United States military and the international community: how do you advance reconstruction while a war, albeit a low-intensity one, continues? With U.S. military operations appearing increasingly ineffective, the intensity of spoiler insurgency activity intensifying, and the reconstruction process faltering, the U.S. has sought to modify its overall strategy, fusing military and development objectives. They have developed a plan to station 40-60 soldiers in as many as eight cities outside Kabul to provide security and support reconstruction. Dubbed Provisional Reconstruction Teams (PRT) they will include Special Operations Soldiers, Army Civil Affairs Officers, conventional ground troops, officials from USAID, and representatives from the U.S. State Department. In addition to initiating and assisting development projects, these teams are supposed to provide safe enclaves for the ATA, international NGOs and the UN to operate. The Bush administration plans to ask members of NATO to provide small numbers of troops for these teams. The first Civil-Military Operations Centre (CMOC) was opened in Gardez in late January 2003; an additional center will be established in Baiman in central Afghanistan in the coming months.
While it is encouraging that the U.S. Military has recognized the limitations of its previous strategy and has sought to remedy them, its new policy fails to meet the unique exigencies of the situation. A great deal of criticism, primarily from relief agencies in the field, has been leveled at the new policy. Critics affirm that the PRTs will be dependent on the warlords for security, strengthening these figures; their presence will blur the distinction between military and humanitarian operations, thereby endangering humanitarian workers in the field; they will politicize the development process by gravitating to pro-government communities as opposed to areas believed to have pro-Al Qaeda sympathies; and their lack of female staff will render them unable to address the unique needs of Afghan women.
U.S. forces should leave the coordination of reconstruction to the Afghan government, the UN, and other civilian aid agencies. The goal of restoring security in the country would be better served by the U.S. military adopting a peacekeeping role and providing assistance to disarmament and demobilization efforts, objectives more in tune with the military's modus operandi. If the U.S. were to commit a significant proportion of its troops to peacekeeping duties, other states, particularly in Europe, would surely follow suit. The primary reason for the reluctance of European governments to support an expansion of ISAF is their lack of military capacity to undertake such a large operation without U.S. support. With U.S. leadership, and under the auspices of NATO, they would likely reevaluate their objections to supporting a comprehensive peacekeeping operation.
Even if ISAF is expanded it is critical that U.S.-led Coalition and ATA forces continue to exert sustained pressure on total spoilers. With the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Hekmatyar massing their forces in the south of the country, steps must be taken to neutralize the threat they pose. Attacks on U.S. and ATA forces, which have gradually increased in intensity since November 2002, will likely intensify further if war breaks out in Iraq. Foreshadowing this eventuality, on 27 January 2002, U.S., European and Afghan forces engaged in what has been described as the fiercest fighting in eight months with 80 rebels believed to be loyal to Hekmatyar in the mountainous area of southeastern Afghanistan near the town of Spin Boldak. Rising violence in the southeast, which resulted in the deaths of at least 30 Afghan civilians and soldiers between 29 January and 8 February, threatens to curtail all humanitarian aid to this impoverished region. The ATA recently deployed 5,000 troops and police to the nearby town of Spin Boldak to confront the growing threat, an encouraging display of resolve and assertiveness. Total spoilers will only respond to pressure, thus the international community and the ATA should take an aggressive and proactive stance toward them.
The nation-building process in Afghanistan is entering a critical phase. The ATA, in its second year of power, must deliver on its promise of a better life for the Afghan people in 2003 or risk losing their allegiance. The window of opportunity for Afghan reconstruction and peace-building is closing. It is incumbent on the international community to help Afghanistan seize this unprecedented opportunity for renewal. Assisting the Afghan government ameliorate adverse security conditions is key to achieving this overarching objective. The continuing war in Afghanistan makes this task problematic for a minimum level of physical security is required for nation-building to proceed, thus particular attention must be paid to reconciling the oft-incompatible aims of the war on terror and the reconstruction process.
Capacity-building must be a core element of all donor policies in Afghanistan; the international community must remain cognizant of the danger of fostering Afghan dependence on the international community. The sudden and dramatic increase in international aid and support threatens to create dependency on international assistance and undermine Afghan efforts to assume ownership of the reconstruction program. One of the strengths of Afghan society is its strong spirit of independence and entrepeneurship; this must be nurtured. To ensure that Afghan initiative is encouraged, not stifled, the international community should endeavor to leave a light footprint but with a wide impression. By expanding its involvement with a focus on fostering the creation of sustainable policies and structures, the donor community can help the ATA confront the omnipresent problem of warlordism, integrating partial spoilers into the new polity while purging the country of total spoilers. This will be a long-term and multi-faceted process that could take generations to complete, thus it is essential that the donor community resist the inevitable pressures to shift spending and attention to other trouble spots before this mammoth task is completed.
Mark Sedra, "Afghanistan: Between War and Reconstruction: Where Do We Go From Here?" (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, March 1, 2003)