 In Afghanistan, people now live 20 years longer on average than under
Taliban rule, they say; 7 million more children attend school and
women are 80 percent less likely to die in childbirth.
The specter of an abrupt departure of all U.S. and NATO soldiers
from Afghanistan at the end of next year now imperils these gains,
they warn, and endangers progress on the massive development
challenges that remain.
Unless the Obama administration can persuade Afghan President Hamid
Karzai to sign a security pact that would permit a modest U.S. force
to remain beyond 2014, the United States is almost certain to
drastically scale back aid to Afghanistan.
That would force aid groups to work under more precarious security
conditions and compete for scantier aid dollars.
It would be "a complete catastrophe" to pull the entire U.S. force
from Afghanistan next year, said Andrew Wilder, who directs
Afghanistan and Pakistan programs at the U.S. Institute of Peace and
spent years working in the region.
A deterioration in security conditions would hamper oversight of aid
projects, possibly making a deeply skeptical Congress even more
reluctant to fund Afghan aid.
A smaller staff at the U.S. embassy in Kabul would also make it more
difficult to sustain many U.S. aid programs.
"My judgment is no troops, no aid, or almost no aid," James Dobbins,
the U.S. envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told Congress this
month. "The political support for the aid comes from the military
presence."
Last year, the United States and other donors promised to provide
Afghanistan $16 billion in aid through 2015, at least half of which
must go through Afghan government coffers. Afghanistan's government
also promised to work toward benchmarks in governance, human rights
and fighting corruption.
Since the Taliban government was ousted in 2001, the United States
has already spent at least $88 billion on Afghan aid, not including
the much larger bill for combat costs.
After arduous negotiations on the U.S.-Afghan security agreement
were completed last month, Washington expected Karzai to sign it,
paving the way for a force of possibly around 8,000-12,000 U.S. and
NATO troops to remain after 2014. There are about 39,000 U.S.
soldiers in Afghanistan now.
Instead, Karzai has refused to do so, suggesting the pact should be
signed following Afghan presidential elections in the spring. The
Obama administration says that would not leave Washington and its
allies enough time to plan for a possible post-2014 mission.
"INCREDIBLY CHALLENGING"
Even if U.S. troops are permitted to stay, the aid effort will be
shifted to focus on defending gains that have been made in recent
years, rather than setting ambitious new goals, Larry Sampler, a
senior U.S. Agency for International Development official, told
lawmakers during a hearing this month.
U.S. and NATO nations are already planning to shut down all 28
Provincial Reconstruction Teams, the outposts that have delivered
assistance in remote areas, by the end of 2014.
Assuming the U.S. Congress continues to fund some level of Afghan
aid, the United States does have the capability to continue
delivering assistance. It would work through relief groups and
multilateral organizations, or possibly even run the program from a
neighboring country, as it did during earlier Afghan conflicts.
Some UN agencies and private aid groups remained in Afghanistan
during the chaos of the 1980s and 1990s, even when donor support
dwindled after invading Soviet troops withdrew in 1989. The ensuing
conflict between mujahedeen groups made work more difficult for aid
workers, and later Taliban restrictions hindered their ability to
assist women and girls.
[to top of second column] |
Between 1985 and 1994, USAID officials in neighboring Pakistan ran a
cross-border aid program for Afghanistan.
USAID, which works largely through small non-governmental
organizations and large development contractors, could still award
aid projects if all troops withdraw, and Washington would maintain
its support for the U.N. development agencies and other partners.
Still, Sampler said, "If there were no (security deal) and there
were a decision to continue to program (civilian assistance), it
would be incredibly challenging."
BANGLADESH, NOT SWEDEN
Wilder said he was a proponent of reducing U.S. civilian assistance
to Afghanistan, where USAID spending ballooned to an annual $3.5
billion in 2010 during President Barack Obama's 'civilian surge,' to
"more realistic and sustainable" levels.
"When you create an aid bubble and a war economy, the solution is
not popping that bubble — you have to let the air out gradually," he
said. "The challenge is to not go from too much to too little too
quickly."
The assistance needs remain acute in Afghanistan, still one of the
world's poorest countries.
Only a quarter of Afghans have access to safe drinking water, and a
weak central government remains unable to fund its own costs. A
hoped-for boom in mining and hydrocarbons has not materialized,
while the illegal poppy trade is thriving.
"Afghanistan is not in 10 years going to be a Sweden. We're hoping
for a Bangladesh," Sampler said.
A full drawdown could also force the United States to dramatically
scale back its diplomatic ambitions and presence.
In 2012, Washington abandoned plans to build a consulate in the
Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif because the site was seen as
vulnerable to militant attack. The same fate could meet plans for
other diplomatic facilities elsewhere in Afghanistan.
Dobbins has warned that the United States could even be forced to
close its embassy in Kabul, as it did in the 1990s.
That would drastically reduce the U.S. ability to support
Afghanistan's weak central government and keep the influence of
neighboring Iran and Pakistan in check.
Seth Jones, an Afghanistan expert at the RAND Corp, said that
certain U.S. government elements would likely stay on in Afghanistan
no matter what — diplomats, aid officials, in addition to
intelligence and counter-terrorism elements -- if arrangements can
be made with future Afghan leaders.
"It's technically possible, but the question also becomes whether
the administration becomes so tired of this that it just moves on
and pulls out, as it did in Iraq," Jones said.
Violence in Iraq is at its highest level in at least five years.
More than 8,000 people have been killed this year, according to the
United Nations.
(Editing by Warren Strobel and Andrew Hay)
[© 2013 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2013 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
