[twitter style=”horizontal” source=”@intlpolitical” float=”left”] [fbshare type=”button”] It is undeniable that the recent Tokyo Conference on the reconstruction of Afghanistan into 2014 is shrouded by a cloud of pessimism.
Even before the onset of the conference, worries were echoed across humanitarian organisations that the concentration of international policy leader’s on security would blind real, concrete, future development for the Afghan people.
Only a few days ago the likelihood of a repeat of uneven expenditure was confirmed. Obama’s decision to heighten US forces has now been enumerated by a decline in civilian support funds. It is here that many of us are asking ourselves, in the midst of a 2014 pull out deadline, what is different now? What makes the international community believe that pouring another $16billion into Afghanistan with a similar strategy will not only provide stability for the interim government but the Afghan people too?
An issue that has been proven by the case of Afghanistan is that humanitarian funds have been soaked up by ineffective short term aid ‘fixes’: bridges and dams that collapse after a few years, pop-up women’s clinics that still carry the stigma of Taliban attacks and gender division, and a paramount city v.s. rural divide in terms of basic health access. Countless research has been engaging with these problems and the inefficiencies of past aid. Particularly evident is the concentration on security and international investment. US investment in 2004 and through much of the occupation was over 75% for defence, with $1billion each month being spent on military expenditure but just $25million in aid. So what do we look for in Tokyo, two years before the war in Afghanistan is fully boxed and sealed by the international community?
If anything has been learnt by the history of intervention in Afghanistan it is a question that cannot be answered with ease.
What can be said however is that the power of these aid funds must reach the hands of the people. Secondly it is merely a drain on opportunity to continue a militant war zone strategy in the reconstruction. Aid now needs to be put fully into reconstructive terms. It is absolutely necessary that during these next few years international aid takes on a new face. While the US and allies are still a visible presence in Afghanistan the interim government will continue to be perceived by opposition forces as a puppet. Therefore whilst the drawing out of troops of Afghanistan is a frightening prospect for Afghans and foreigners alike, it is a necessary one. The reality is that foreign troops continue to mar the legitimacy of Afghan security forces and exacerbate the security situation. What matters now is that the aid funneled into Afghanistan through 2014-2016 is one that stresses the building of Afghani infrastructure and enables Afghani choices, not one that is perceived to be an investment of the international community on the conditionality of possible resources, or of political submission. India’s Minister of External Affairs confirmed these urgencies incalling upon the ‘indigenisation‘ of foreign aid and restraint of the temptation to set ‘conditionalities’. In this respect Shuras or local councils must be emulated across Afghanistan in order to curb insecurity on a local-long term level. Herat has already demonstrated that these local councils can strengthen social and economic structures. Most importantly it also highlights the successful possibilities of channeling aid within Afghanistan’s own local instruments and not just foreign structures. They are also a mechanism that represents the possibility and the motivation to obtain a solid future for Afghani educational development and women’s rights.
In this sense although an ambiguous commitment to fund reconstruction has been made, little has been said in reference to the setting of concrete human rights or humanitarian values to guide such international aid. A shadow still overcasts Afghanistan’s future in such fields. Such values could provide a needed blockade to oppositional insurgencies gaining support or ground in more environmentally alienated regions.
The only conclusion from the conference is that these challenges will surely unravel over time, and with the failures of intervention coming to a close, it will be down to the Afghani people, and not the international community, to mobilise a peaceful and prosperous future for Afghanistan.
About the Author
