Afghanistan: Aid spike is over
Afghanistan is figuring in the news these days as U.S. presidential candidates call attention to it; as Mr. Karzai was invited to Camp David for strategy sessions; and as more hostage-taking incidents indicate a decreased security.
Yet in today’s RFE/RL Newsline, the U.S. will be slashing aid to Afghanistan by over 50%. Here is the article in full:
U.S. ASSISTANCE TO AFGHANISTAN TO DROP OVER 50 PERCENT.
The U.S. State Department said on August 2 that the United States will decrease its assistance to Afghanistan from $10.1 billion in 2007 to $4.7 billion in 2008, Pajhwak Afghan News reported on August 3. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Richard Boucher said the high funding in 2007 was an exceptional circumstance, intended to provide a “jump-start” to certain development projects and other critical programs, including training for the police and military.
U.S. support amounted to approximately $3.3 billion in 2006 and increased to $10.1 billion due to the supplemental funding for kick-off activities, Boucher said. “Even when we drop back in 2008 to $4.7 billion, we’re still 50 percent higher,” he reasoned. JC
Three things I don’t think make sense about this: a. cutting funding, for the first; b. failing to examine the patterns of funding for increased efficiency and appropriate help; and c. pulling back at a time when the U.S. is asking for stepped-up commitment in the area from others. And last week, the UN High Commission for Refugees sent out a warning notice on the dire straits of many Afghanistan refugees who need to be re-integrated into Afghan society.
This weekend, Afghanistan Watch posted an op-ed from two aid workers returned from Afghanistan. (The article in full is at the post). The op-ed said that the largest danger in Afghanistan was neither violence nor poppy fields, but “the unrealized hopes of Afghanistan’s citizens.” These two authors are from Mercy Corps, a great organization which has the capacity to work with smaller communities on a variety of programs. In my own research in another venue, Mercy Corps worked with community leaders and citizens to decide first-what kind of facility they most needed-and then helped them obtain it. Their operation puts people in ownership of their own aid projects: not just developing a medical center, for instance, but providing training for civic leaders on how to assess hospital care and order supplies, create a management board, train and attract medical personnel, and so forth. These are the kinds of projects that Afghanistan needs if it is going to gain hope. And there are relatively calm parts of Afghanistan where such reconstruction projects could take root.
About 18 months ago, a report from the RAND corporation said that we were losing Afghanistan’s citizens by failing to provide aid in terms of children’s health and basic needs, and it was a main contributor to security failure in the state.
I see these budget decisions with profound regret. But my regret surely compares in no way to how Afghanistan citizens must be viewing these non-strategic developments.
Mercy Corps program 2001
August 6th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Seriously. I’ve been carping for years about how stupid our underinvestment in Afghanistan is. In the Peter Bergen article you linked a few days ago, he mentioned it is the lowest investment in post-conflict stability since WWII, and dwarfed by the Balkans… to say nothing of the fact that Iraq gets in about a month what Afghanistan gets in an entire year.
Sometimes I do wonder if the U.S. government really wants Afghanistan to fail.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
[…] Six years after its invasion of Afghanistan, the United States has announced it will curb aid to the war-torn country. Bonnie Boyd thinks this does not make much sense at all; and Joshua Foust again disagrees with The Economist, arguing that things in Afghanistan are not as bad as they have been for much of the past thirty years. Share This […]
August 7th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Dear Bonnie, Josh,
For people regularly blogging on Afghanistan this is a bit like having one’s nose rubbed in the dirt, actually, isn’t it? Not altogether unexpected, but still…
This reminds me, C over at Afghanistanica has, somewhat coincidentally it seems to me, just the other day accounted of having had two hours of free time getting away from the particular intensive language course he’s attending, obviously with Afghanistan on his mind… And just look at the post he’s written in that spare time he found, and his concluding remarks.
As to whether this is ‘angling for failure’ (I think I’m literally quoting from a past post of yours on the issue here, Josh)… Well, certainly this all is not about angling for some big success in Afghanistan. And that already is astonishing.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Dear Peter,
Yes, I also saw that great article at Afghanistanica . [Note to readers: see http://afghanistanica.com/2007/08/05/afghanistan-is-sort-of-irrelevant/#comments ].
Everything you said is just so, woefully, true.
Thanks for writing in and for all the support. We Afghanistan-watchers have to stick together. . .
Bonnie
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
hey
its very unconventional point of view.
Good post.
realy good post
thx