| 
						Morality and politics 
						must mix, Chayes says 
   Send a link to a friend 
						
						[March 26, 2015] By 
						Tom Heneghan 
						(Reuters) - Sarah Chayes 
						went to Afghanistan in 2001 as a journalist, stayed on 
						as a development worker and became an expert on the link 
						between corruption and violent religious militancy 
						described in her book "Thieves of State". | 
			
            | The subtitle - "Why corruption threatens global security" - 
				summarizes her view that United States support for corrupt 
				Afghan politicians over the past decade fanned grassroots anger 
				there and boosted support for the resurgent Taliban militants.
 Although she became a special adviser to the U.S. military in 
				Afghanistan in 2009 and is now a senior associate at the 
				Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, Chayes 
				has struggled to convince Western officials that injustice may 
				drive some people to religiously inspired violence.
 
 Chayes spoke to Reuters by telephone from London during a recent 
				visit to present her book there.
 
 Q: You lived in Kandahar for most of the last decade. How did 
				you make the link between corruption, religion and security?
 
 A: My thesis derives from living in the milieu. I didn’t have 
				Taliban friends, but everyone I knew did. By 2007, when the 
				Taliban were in full re-expansion, everybody in Kandahar had an 
				in-law or cousin who was a Talib. The connection was suggested 
				to me by people who are essentially the recruitment pool. I saw 
				people who were being recruited saying at least the Taliban did 
				something about corruption.
 
 Q: Why did you write this book?
 
 A: The corruption of the Afghan government and the real and 
				perceived role of Western interveners in enabling it drove 
				people into the arms of the Taliban ... I spent five or six 
				years trying to get Western interveners to see this. I told them 
				if we don’t address the underlying drivers of the Taliban 
				resurgence, you can kill all the Taliban you want and you won’t 
				get anywhere. But I didn’t make the case sufficiently enough for 
				people to change the policy.
 
 Q: How is Afghanistan relevant to the rest of the world?
 
 A: In a talk I gave in Germany in 2010 about narcotics in 
				Afghanistan, I described the Afghan government as a vertically 
				integrated criminal organization. I thought that was a wonky 
				throw-away line, and I got a standing ovation! There were people 
				from 45 different countries there and several came up to me and 
				said "you just described my country". And every person who said 
				that had a violent religious extremist movement in their 
				country.
 
			[to top of second column] | 
            
				 
			Q: How do U.S. policymakers react when you argue that corruption 
			helps foster violent religious "extremism"? 
			A: They say social justice or economic concerns may motivate the 
			rank-and-file recruits but the leadership is ideological ... But 
			religious ideology is deeply intertwined with social justice issues. 
			These Westerners look at the phenomenon of Islamist extremism in 
			almost Manichean terms and see these people as basically evil ... 
			they try to disassociate social justice from religion, as if 
			religion was in one bucket and social justice or economic concerns 
			in another.
 Q: You've just been in Nigeria. Does your analysis apply there?
 
 A: On Boko Haram, I’m getting real resistance from Western 
			policymakers on the anti-corruption roots of that movement. They say 
			Boko Haram doesn’t recruit, it conscripts. It’s essentially the 
			Lord's Resistance Army. That's interesting - the LRA has a religious 
			word in its name. So what’s going on there?
 
			Q: Corruption is usually seen as a barrier to development or 
			business, not something the military should worry about.
 A: This whole issue is placed in the development category, or the 
			moral category. For our governments, if something is just a moral 
			issue, it's not something you assign resources to. But it's a 
			security issue too.
 
 Q: Hard-headed security types don't normally speak about moral 
			issues.
 
 A: One cannot speak in moral terms in a policy setting. You could in 
			the 1960s and 1970s, but not now. To some extent, you can more on 
			the conservative side in the U.S. more than on the left. I want to 
			... reclaim the connection between moral behavior and political 
			action. They ought to be linked, not unlinked. Our own experiment in 
			democracy was explicitly an experiment in moral governance.
 
 (Editing by Michael Roddy and Louise Ireland)
 
			[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
				reserved.] Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |