The Beneficence of Aid
How's this for cynical opportunism? A newly-released report by the Agency Co-Ordinating Body for Afghan Relief, a collective entity representing no fewer than 94 international aid agencies has revealed tragic levels of inefficiency and wastefulness troubling and undermining the international aid effort in Afghanistan, along with that of the Afghan government itself.
Why be surprised, one supposes. It's long been known that elements within the government of Afghanistan are irremediably corrupt, from the "elected" parliamentarians, many of whom were once brutal tribal War Lords guilty of violent human rights abuses and deriving income from the poppy trade, to the bureaucracies operating within the purview of government, where graft is a way of life.
And it's also a fact of life - of war and death, in fact - that nature abhors a vacuum; enablers and foreign contractors hurry into any such situation as a country destabilized by war, ostensibly to do their part in the civic reconstruction through their own altruistic instincts, and just making a little profit on the side. That little profit has ballooned exponentially, as expected - by the contractors.
There's always a lot of profit to be made in war, and in the aftermath of war. And enterprising entrepreneurs are certain to present themselves to take advantage of any and all opportunities. Under the guise of helpfulness and universal public duty. They offer the ways and means, the glue that binds, the helpmate between civilian need and military duty.
So it is that Matt Waldman of Oxfam, author of the report, has revealed that $6-billion representing roughly 40% of international aid pledged to reconstruction has been filtered through to private infrastructure contractors, and security contractors and others of their ilk. As for the Afghan officials also involved, there are no records to be had demonstrating how $5.3-billion of aid was spent.
The United States, Britain, Japan, Germany and Canada have been singled out as nations which have made good on their pledges, while other wealthy western nations have been accused of handing over scant little of their pledged financial contributions. The most miserly among them identified as France and Spain. Perhaps theirs is the most practical solution, understanding beforehand the contretemps that would result in such waste.
And even though the United States is the single most generous donor to Afghanistan's reconstruction, it represents one of its largest shortfalls, having delivered only half of its $10.4-billion commitment in a 7-year period. Britain claims that a full 80% of its donation commitment went directly to the Afghan government in recognition of its need to self-manage.
Ominously, the report goes on to warn that "Increasing insecurity and criminality is jeopardizing progress in Afghanistan. With low government revenues, international assistance constitutes around 90% of all public expenditure in the country. Thus how it is spent has an enormous impact on the lives of almost all Afghans and will determine the success of reconstruction and development."
That's really bad news. While foreign troops are stationed in the country in a dedicated, co-operative effort at removing the Taliban from any potential of renewing its stronghold in the country, if no real and tenable improvements are made in reconstruction and economic stability, there can be no forward momentum.
Trust from ordinary Afghan citizens will evaporate, their expectations will falter, their allegiance will be swayed. A prominent Afghan member of parliament claims the report is too kind to the international effort, that the situation is much worse than identified. "In every dollar, only 11 cents is going to Afghans. The rest is returning to the West."
President Hamid Karzai is already in a precarious position of distrust among his people. They appreciate the work done on their behalf by the NGOs, but it is a relatively paltry effort, despite their dedication and hard work, benefiting too few to make the impact necessary to ensure forward momentum. The international effort gets a failing grade.
The government of Afghanistan fares no better. What are we all doing there? What, exactly, is the point? Well, yes, in urban centers life has improved immeasurably for women and girls. Girls can now anticipate receiving an education and opportunities for the advancement of women are opening up. Health clinics have been opened, and people can seek medical treatment. There is an emerging economic hope for the future.
In rural areas, in tribal and mountainous areas tradition is immovable. The ancient culture is psychically and irremediably engrained. Change may come, but it will not be in this lifetime. Is that any reason not to continue the struggle to allow these disadvantaged people to secure themselves more reasonably in their harsh environment? This is for them to decide.
Who knows?
Why be surprised, one supposes. It's long been known that elements within the government of Afghanistan are irremediably corrupt, from the "elected" parliamentarians, many of whom were once brutal tribal War Lords guilty of violent human rights abuses and deriving income from the poppy trade, to the bureaucracies operating within the purview of government, where graft is a way of life.
And it's also a fact of life - of war and death, in fact - that nature abhors a vacuum; enablers and foreign contractors hurry into any such situation as a country destabilized by war, ostensibly to do their part in the civic reconstruction through their own altruistic instincts, and just making a little profit on the side. That little profit has ballooned exponentially, as expected - by the contractors.
There's always a lot of profit to be made in war, and in the aftermath of war. And enterprising entrepreneurs are certain to present themselves to take advantage of any and all opportunities. Under the guise of helpfulness and universal public duty. They offer the ways and means, the glue that binds, the helpmate between civilian need and military duty.
So it is that Matt Waldman of Oxfam, author of the report, has revealed that $6-billion representing roughly 40% of international aid pledged to reconstruction has been filtered through to private infrastructure contractors, and security contractors and others of their ilk. As for the Afghan officials also involved, there are no records to be had demonstrating how $5.3-billion of aid was spent.
The United States, Britain, Japan, Germany and Canada have been singled out as nations which have made good on their pledges, while other wealthy western nations have been accused of handing over scant little of their pledged financial contributions. The most miserly among them identified as France and Spain. Perhaps theirs is the most practical solution, understanding beforehand the contretemps that would result in such waste.
And even though the United States is the single most generous donor to Afghanistan's reconstruction, it represents one of its largest shortfalls, having delivered only half of its $10.4-billion commitment in a 7-year period. Britain claims that a full 80% of its donation commitment went directly to the Afghan government in recognition of its need to self-manage.
Ominously, the report goes on to warn that "Increasing insecurity and criminality is jeopardizing progress in Afghanistan. With low government revenues, international assistance constitutes around 90% of all public expenditure in the country. Thus how it is spent has an enormous impact on the lives of almost all Afghans and will determine the success of reconstruction and development."
That's really bad news. While foreign troops are stationed in the country in a dedicated, co-operative effort at removing the Taliban from any potential of renewing its stronghold in the country, if no real and tenable improvements are made in reconstruction and economic stability, there can be no forward momentum.
Trust from ordinary Afghan citizens will evaporate, their expectations will falter, their allegiance will be swayed. A prominent Afghan member of parliament claims the report is too kind to the international effort, that the situation is much worse than identified. "In every dollar, only 11 cents is going to Afghans. The rest is returning to the West."
President Hamid Karzai is already in a precarious position of distrust among his people. They appreciate the work done on their behalf by the NGOs, but it is a relatively paltry effort, despite their dedication and hard work, benefiting too few to make the impact necessary to ensure forward momentum. The international effort gets a failing grade.
The government of Afghanistan fares no better. What are we all doing there? What, exactly, is the point? Well, yes, in urban centers life has improved immeasurably for women and girls. Girls can now anticipate receiving an education and opportunities for the advancement of women are opening up. Health clinics have been opened, and people can seek medical treatment. There is an emerging economic hope for the future.
In rural areas, in tribal and mountainous areas tradition is immovable. The ancient culture is psychically and irremediably engrained. Change may come, but it will not be in this lifetime. Is that any reason not to continue the struggle to allow these disadvantaged people to secure themselves more reasonably in their harsh environment? This is for them to decide.
Who knows?
Labels: Life's Like That, Realities, Society
posted by Pieface | 6:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home