Recent articles have reported that al Qaeda militants are streaming into Afghanistan from Iraq. This is in line with my earlier prediction that the tactics of Jihad would be exported, if not the fighters, to the Afghan front. According to the Post, violence has surged during the last year, resulting in more American dead than in the previous three years since we toppled the taliban from power. US officials say they don't have any evidence that the rebellions are linked, but the upsurge in suicide bombings speak for themselves. An interesting development of the upsurge in violence in Afghanistan has been that Afghans have staged protests against the tactic of suicide attacks, and have demanded that the international community push Pakistant to end its support for the insurgency, something that Pakistan denies it has been doing. Thie development, of Afghanis blaming the Pakistani government for the continuing insurgency can also be seen in recent reports on militants burning down schools accross southern Afghanistan. These attacks are aimed at schools, principals, teachers and others in an effort to undermine one of the few things that the Afghan government has been able to improve, education, and with it the governments own ability to protect its civilian population. The center of most anti-government activity is Kandahar, and it leads the country in schools burned. The people however, rather than blaming the Taliban for such actions, have turned against the government of Pakistan. Many display much more anti-Pakistan feelings, than anti-Taliban feelings as a result of these attacks. This quote from the CS Monitor more tahn exemplifies the feeling
Noting that the arsonists didn't allow caretakers to take copies of the Koran out of the classrooms before burning them, Loyawala principal Abdul Nazir says, "I don't think this was the Taliban, they don't burn Koran. Actually you have a lot of Pakistanis arrested with explosives these days. This is what they do. It's not coming from anywhere else but from Pakistan."Abdul Aziz, the headmaster, agrees. "Pakistan doesn't want Afghanistan's education to go higher," he says, arguing that Pakistan relies on Afghans as laborers and consumers. "They want us to remain poor, illiterate, and dependent."
These attacks, however, have not deterred Afghans from getting an education (or in the case of teachers and schools, providing it), as this quote demonstrates
"But even now, in remote districts, teachers
are teaching. They tell me 'The only thing that will take Afghanistan out of its troubles is education, and whatever price we pay, we have to do it.'"
Another interesting thing to note in the stories coming out of Afghanistan is that unlike their ties with Pakistan, their ties with India are improving. According to an interview with the Afghan Ambassador to
India in in.rediff.com, india has done quite a bit to aid the post-Taliban government in Afghanistan. The article mentions a few of the things that India has done: It provided help to build Afghanistan's infrastructure, roads, schools, computerisation, training of different institutions, and provided funds ($25 million) dollars for the construction of the Afghan parliament. In addition, India has allocated 1,000 scholarships (500 professional and 500 for higher education) for Afghans. This is a worrying development for Pakistan, who has always feared being stuck between India and and Indian ally. It was this fear that prompted them to support the Taliban's rise to power during the 1990's, because although the Taliban were extremists, they were beholden to Pakistan, not India (like the previous government in Kabul). Now, Pakistan sees India's influence rising in Afghanistan, meanwhile their own influence and credibility continue to suffer because of their "perceived" role as abettors of the Taliban and al Qaeda. This even as fighting between Afghan security forces and the Taliban spill into Pakistani territory in Southern Afghanistan, the hotbed of the insurgency (and the ever growing trade in narcotics). Three days ago, the Post reported that about 200 Afghan forces squared off against about 250 rebels. Additionally, the fighting spilled over the border as three Pakistani security personnel were killed by a roadside bomb in the northwest tribal region.
NATO forces are also watching developments here closely as NATO will begin expanding into Southern Afghanistan by the middle of this year. This as President Karzai states that foreign troops may be needed in Afghanistan for the next five to ten years, this while thanking the Brits for their additional commitment of 3,300 troops for Afghanistan. In total NATO will increase its contribution of troops to Afghanistan by 6,000, bringing the total NATO contingent to 15,000, still short of the American contribution of 19,000 (though the US will reduce these by 2,500 to 16,500). Of those forces, our troops bear the brunt of the Leviathan work, while other Multinational forces naturally flow to the SysAdmin work. The expansion of NATO forces to Southern Afghanistan is a positive development for the country, because currently only Kabul is safe enough to allow economic connectivity to flourish. As these forces expand, our Leviathan like force will naturally shrink. However, the rise in violence seems to foretell a darker future. In Afghanistan, our window of goodwill won has been larger than it was in Iraq, as time goes on that window will begin to close, so the more we do now the better to stabilize the regime and improve the lives of the people. That is why the recent aid pledges from the World Bank ($1.2 billion), the US and the rest of the Core (totalling $10 billion) are so important, as is the committment of more NATO troops to Afghanistan. Karzai has announced a five year plan for the aid pledged, to "strengthen democratic institutions, and combat terrorism and drug trafficking in his struggling nation." But as the article points out, the challenge remains a daunting one. The following quote in the article also points to our closing window of goodwill
Khalilullah, 26, a Kabul resident who, like many Afghans, uses only one name, said he has given up on the idea that increased economic aid to Afghanistan will make his life better. He operates a stand selling fast foods, which are increasingly popular among Kabul residents. He said he makes about $9 a day when business is especially good, and goes home empty-pocketed when it isn't."Nothing will change," he said. "I'll still be out here, selling burgers and french fries."
The window is closing, but even the quote above draws our attention to the possibilities if we succeed. How long until Khalil burgers become a Western household name?
The window of opportunity, of course, has been closed a little more, and faster due to the recent controversy surrounding the cartoons published by a Danish newspaper. As the Post reports today, the protest over the cartoons have spread throuhgout Afghanistan, engendering ill will toward foreginers, particularly Westerners. In the article, there is also a report that three protesters were killed by NATO troops, and although NATO disputes this, given the current climate their assertions will likely not be believed. We should also expect that al Qaeda and the Taliban will exploit this issue for all its worth, in the end it helps them to alienate the people from their government, and from the Multinational forces in the country maintain stability. Does this mean, that people have a right to act as they have been? No, I am merely drawing out the possible implications that this issue will engender in the
short term. Getting back to what we must do to ensure success in the long run, the World Bank announced that the aid it will be proividing will be used to support the Afghan government and will be channeled through Kabul to the provinces. This acknowledges that giving Kabul control over the purse string is a very effective way to grant them legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghan population.
Another issue we will have to deal with is the narcotics trade. A recent opinion piece in the Boston Globe pointed out that the trade in narcotics has been closely linked to Taliban and al Qaeda attacks, meaning that once the Afghan government engages in eradication operations many of those involved seek out the rebels for protection. President Karzai himself, as well as others acknowledge the depth of the problem. The US has engaged a program called "alternative livelihoods," which gives farmers alternative means of earning a living. As part of the campaign, the US distributes free wheat seed, fertilizer, and engages in the construction of new roads to help farmers bring their products to market. The opinion piece in the Boston Globe, argues for a similar program but takes the aid a step further. I am only mentioning it because I think it highlights one of the drawbacks of our own farm subsidies, and provides a means to subsidize a future for the people of Afghanistan (or any other country emerging from war). The program I think should be called, "reverse farm subsidization." In this program, as detailed by Robert I. Rotberg, the developed world would provide them with a ten year guarantee to purchase wheat from Afghan farmers at triple the world price. This would provide them enough of an incentive to produce wheat instead of poppys for heroin. In this way, you reduce the amount of farmland used for poppy cultivation, while engendering the goodwill of the population, you provide them with a better livelihood than before and avoid most of the drawbacks of a campaign aimed at poppy eradication.
In BFA Barnett talks about the International Reconstruction Fund, to transition countries from the Gap to the Core. I think any such transition mechanism would have to also incorporate a reverse subsidization mechanism to ensure that farmers in those countries have an incentive to grow food rather than the base materials for the drug trade. If at the same time we also do away with out own agricultural subsidization, thereby opening our markets to the developing world, we can do more to shrink the Gap than we have in the past. American, European and Japanese farm subsidies keep agricultural prices in the world depressed making it harder for third world producers to make a profit. Reducing these, and subsidizing those countries like Afghanistan transitioning from war to peace, allows us to secure not only their future but also our own.
Afghanistan is likely to be our testing ground for many transition mechanisms. Already it is a testing ground for a program similar to Barnett's IRF in the form of an ARTF or Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund being run through the World Bank. It is an important experiment and we must ensure its success, because more than anything, it is out of the disconnectedness in this country that the attacks on our country were planned, it is there that al Qaeda found a home, and the protection of the Taliban. Getting Afghanistan on its feet, and on its way to a successful future, can do more to defeat al Qaeda and its ideology than our military power because its success (just like Iraq's) will provide Muslims an alternative to both religious zealotry and dictatorship.
Update
This just in from the Washington Post.
Afghanistan Hails Debt Cancellation
By DANIEL COONEY
The Associated Press
Wednesday, February 8, 2006; 4:13 PM
KABUL, Afghanistan -- Afghanistan on Wednesday hailed decisions to cancel the impoverished country's debts to the United States, Russia and Germany, but the country likely will remain dependent on foreign aid as it recovers from decades of war.
Afghanistan owed $108 million to the United States and $44 million to Germany from loans before the 1979 Soviet invasion. Russia claimed it was owed about $10 billion from loans to a puppet communist government in the early 1990s.
This decision should help Afghanistan's long term prospects, but many challenges still remain.
Read More...
Snippet only...
