Brussels Conference on Afghanistan: Afghanistan nees a lot of Self-Help

 

Brussels Conference: Afghanistan Needs a Lot of Self-Help

 

By Wahab Raofi

 

Afghanistan president Ashraf Ghani once boasted that he has been a good beggar for his country. This may be true, but foreign aid will never cure his country’s socio-economic ills unless the insurgency lays down arms and Ghani stops micromanaging the government and starts building stronger institutions and infrastructure.

            Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

            Representatives from 70 countries and 20 international organizations will meet at the Brussels Conference on Afghanistan. With their money and guidance, they aim to help this war-torn country get its act together and become a functional, peaceful partner on the world stage.

Many of the players in this conference – the European Union, the United States and others – have been trying to accomplish this for 15 years. It’s in their best interest to ensure that the mountains of Afghanistan are not a safe haven for Islamic extremists who threaten them.

No doubt, a prosperous and peaceful Afghanistan would increase stability throughout the region, but the Brussels Conference is largely focused on foreign aid, and it’s not clear that throwing more money at the problem will work.

A recent analysis published in The Economist leads to the conclusion that foreign aid is best spent on well-governed, albeit poor countries – but that isn’t where it always goes.

In 2012, Western countries gave $1.17 billion to Malawi, which could have made a big impact on the small African country. But within a year, politicians and businessmen had stolen more than $30 million from the treasury, and when a bureaucrat investigated, he was shot three times.

Foreign aid certainly helped transform South Korea and Taiwan into free-market success stories, and it also helped vanquish the scourges of smallpox and polio. These positive results encourage nations to give more hand-outs to the needy.

But, as The Economist suggests, if foreign aid is best directed toward “poor, well-governed states,” how does Afghanistan stack up?

As for being poor, President Ghani will gladly concede that. But good governance? He may have a difficult time convincing potential donors.

On the surface, Afghanistan boasts a modern constitution that embraces democracy, freedom of speech, human rights and three branches of government, while also remaining in harmony with the country’s Islamic tenets.

But beneath the surface is an ugly reality: Corruption infests all elements of government, security is sketchy, and a fragmented citizenry lacks confidence in its politicians and law enforcement. Afghans say a powerful “economic mafia” has benefited from foreign aid and the war-driven economy of the past 15 years.

Since 2001, the U.S., the World Bank and other international organizations have doled out cash and lucrative contracts to well-connected Afghans and companies. Some paid-in-full projects are nowhere to be found except on paper.

Good governance? The Afghan media describes President Ghani as obsessed with details and bogged down with mundane tasks that should be delegated to others. From government protocols to appointing or removing low-level employees to reviewing criminal dossiers, everything must bear his signature.

People joke that when he leaves on a foreign trip, Ghani locks the presidential palace and takes the key with him. As a result, the already-slow-paced government almost grinds to a halt.

Perhaps the single most important factor in the Brussels Conference examination of foreign aid to Afghanistan is the fight against insurgents and extremists. Without success on that front, pouring more money into Afghanistan would be futile.

Instead of begging for foreign aid, Afghanistan should revamp its own foreign policy and internal political structure.

 First, the country should loosen ties to India. That alliance has prompted Pakistan to send Taliban extremists into Afghanistan in an attempt to combat Indian influence in the region.

India has long been a geopolitical ally of Afghanistan, but it’s no longer in the best interest of Afghanistan to alienate Pakistan. Shifting alliances are not uncommon on the world stage. Years ago, who would have thought the U.S. would join Iran in fighting ISIS, or that Saudi Arabia and Israel would cooperate in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?

Afghanistan and Pakistan – each of whom has accused the other of sabotaging their national security – could form a political alliance to combat the Taliban on both sides of the Durand Line.  It’s in Afghanistan’s best interests to forge an economic free-trade zone to bolster its economy.

As a native-born Afghan, I know that loyalty remains deeply rooted in our culture. Loyalty stopped Taliban leaders from turning over Osama bin Laden to the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks (and that loyalty cost the Taliban dearly as the axe of U.S. military might fell on the regime’s collective neck).

It would be difficult for Afghan leaders to turn their backs on Indian friendship, but just as friendship with Osama bin Laden nearly destroyed the Taliban, Afghanistan’s alliance with India has become a threatening liability.

The second step would be to draft a new political system that would give more autonomy to the states. Instead allowing a president in Kabul to micromanage them, the provinces should be given broader powers to handle their own affairs.

If Afghanistan fails to make these critical changes, the bulk of foreign aid will continue to be wasted by the “old order.” Relying on outside help will promote a culture of laziness and dependency.

And that will only put more of a burden on the community of nations now gathering at the Brussels Conference, trying to find ways to pour more aid into a crumbling, outdated and corrupt system.

- 30 -