It's the Afghan economy, stupid:
Jobs and development will defeat the Taliban
M. Ashraf Haidari
July 21, 2010
Afghanistan may be back in the American conscience, but this is hardly good
news. If anything, President Obama's much-needed focus on the campaign against
the Taliban has outlined just how difficult the fight has become. Frustrated
with what many are calling a quagmire, American commentators either advocate for
withdrawing from Afghanistan or engaging in a more intense military campaign.
These are both understandable responses, but even so, they are far from a
complete remedy.
The war in Afghanistan is not being waged on the battlefield alone: If we are
to emerge as a strong and independent democracy, the campaign for Afghanistan 's
economy must stand on equal footing with the counterinsurgency campaign. In
fact, they are one and the same.
We can't build schools during firefights; but without schools, the firefights
will continue. Yet a disproportionate amount of international resources - about
80% of aid provided by each contributing country - have been devoted to military
operations at the cost of job creation and long-term economic development. But
it is more jobs - not just more bullets - that will persuade militias to lay
down their weapons.
Fortunately, Afghanistan is endowed with natural resources - copper, iron
ore, lithium - and can finance its own development, though only if the country
receives the necessary investment and technical assistance from the
international community. Although Afghanistan has some $3 trillion worth of
minerals, we lack the required transportation network to ship these resources.
Building the necessary infrastructure - railroads, highways, processing
plants - will not only facilitate the mining industry but also create jobs. A
sustainable livelihood, no matter how small, will immediately weaken the
insurgency - and its base, a destitute populace - while a modern transportation
network that links Afghanistan with its neighbors will spur long-term growth.
Drug production in Afghanistan is another key problem that can be addressed
by economic development. We know from international experience that global
demand for narcotics finds ready supply in nations where governance is weak,
instability high and poverty rampant. But if Afghanistan 's agriculture sector
is revitalized, fewer farmers will rely on opium harvesting - a dangerous
enterprise to begin with - to make a living. Instead, they could grow wheat,
pomegranates, saffron and other high-value crops. As agribusiness becomes
profitable and sustainable, it will drive down the cost of food for Afghanistan
's poor and raise rural incomes, which should in turn further weaken the
insurgency in crucial provinces like Helmand and Kandahar.
Energy is another factor pivotal to earning the trust of Afghans. Without a
comprehensive electricity grid, Afghanistan can hardly achieve a productive
economy. The availability of electricity can open an incredibly large market for
electronic goods, drastically expanding consumer consumption. Just as
importantly, the Afghan people could finally reap the benefits of a globalized
world through use of the Internet, to which only 3% of the population currently
has access.
Further, corruption can be stemmed when the abuse of power is no longer
necessary as a means of economic uplift. Corruption is a symptom, not a cause,
of weak governance, which can only be strengthened when Afghan civil servants
are thoroughly trained and paid competitive salaries on a sustainable basis.
Right now, a driver at an international NGO or a United Nations agency earns at
least five times more than a civil servant working for the Afghan government.
Nor can this situation be improved unless resources are channeled away from aid
organizations - too many to count, really - directly toward restructuring the
Afghan government into an efficient apparatus of resource allocation.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the U. N. John Bolton recently argued in the Los
Angeles Times that "religious fanatics, and their grievances, do not arise from
poverty or deprivation." To the contrary, many Taliban fighters join the
insurgency simply to earn a living. A significant number of these "rented"
Taliban can be made to turn swords into plowshares if they are given alternative
opportunities.
American security is closely tied to the nascent Afghan economy. Without
stability, the Taliban will continue to enjoy widespread support - and a base
from which to attack American interests.
But if America relies on military might alone, how will the outcome in
Afghanistan differ from that of U.S. forces in Vietnam, the French in Algeria or
the Soviets in Afghanistan ? Militaries alone simply cannot defeat insurgencies.
Haidari is the political counselor of the Embassy of Afghanistan in
Washington, D.C.
The above article originally appeared in the
New York Daily News. Reprinted here with permission from the author.
Back to Top
