Challenges to Afghan Reconstruction Outlined at Congressional Hearing
Monday June 23, 2003
(Participants say increased security, financial resources keys to success) (1060) By Lauren Brodsky Washington File Staff Writer Washington -- At a June 19 hearing before the House Committee on International Relations, economic and political challenges affecting the reconstruction of Afghanistan were outlined by a panel of academics, directors of various non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and representatives from the State Department and the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention. Most concurred that outside of Kabul, the security environment has deteriorated and warlords continue to gain power, creating risks for families, especially women and girls, and foreigners. Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (Republican from Illinois) noted in his opening statements that reconstruction efforts "have quite a way to go" before the goal of a peaceful Afghanistan is realized. "Concerns about persistent insecurity and a slow political and economic reconstruction process are prevalent throughout Afghanistan," he said. Despite the military success in Afghanistan, "peace remains elusive," said Representative Tom Lantos (Democrat from California), the ranking Democratic member of the committee, who voiced concern that the U.S. is not adequately focusing on nation building. "Al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants appear to be reconstituting themselves, mounting a concerted effort to destabilize the government, impede reconstruction, and terrorize the population in the hopes of making Afghanistan ungovernable until the Unites States gets tired and departs," he said. Lantos argued that democracy will be possible only when "warlords realize that their continued relevance lies not with their armies but with the new emerging democratic system in Afghanistan." Ambassador Peter Tomson, former special envoy to Afghanistan, said that the U.S. government and Afghanistan's new administration under Hamid Karzai have "lost the initiative. The policy drift in U.S. Afghan policy must first be resolved in Washington." Ambassador Tomson suggested a new reconstruction push to increase security. "The U.S. should seek NATO approval to augment the international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan when NATO takes over the U.N. mandate for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in early August," he suggested. Ambassador Tomson praised the Department of Defense's successful Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) for "blending security and development." He said "the PRTs are winners, an innovative, productive framework for reconstruction in Afghanistan's rural areas. There should be more of them and more project funding support for each." Along with increased U.S. reconstruction efforts, Representative Lantos advocated more participation by the Afghan people in creating their own constitution. "The current constitutional drafting process is secretive and apparently strongly influenced by Islamist hardliners; there is little or no public input, and there are reports about intimidation of democracy advocates and political reformers," he said. The implementation of an Afghan constitution and the national elections scheduled for June 2004 are key benchmarks of the Bonn Agreement, which will create the foundation of the post-Taliban government in Afghanistan. To ensure the success of the Bonn Agreement, Ambassador Tomson supported a centralized government to prevent warlords "from attempting to fix election outcomes in their areas." Tomson proposed that the United States "become much more decisive in building up the moderate Karzai regime." However, Charles Santos, the Director of the Foundation for Central Asian Development, noted that Afghanistan is made up of many regions, and therefore he took issue with the notion that "he who rules Kabul rules Afghanistan." Professor Larry Goodson of the U.S. Army War College agreed, calling for "modifications to the central government model, including a federal or confederal approach." However, others on the panel supported a strong central government system, including M. Hasan Nouri, Chairman of International Orphan Care. Nouri argued that local autonomy is "another word for warlordism." Warlordism not only challenges the democratic process but also has caused a deteriorating human rights situation, according to John Sifton, Afghanistan researcher for Human Rights Watch. He said fear of robbery, kidnapping and rape keeps many Afghans at home, afraid to seek health care or attend school. And although the situation has improved for some Afghan women, "a majority of girls are not at school." Many panelists and members of Congress expressed concern for the status and safety of women, including Representative Diane E. Watson (Democrat from California). She argued that if "women are not involved all the way, [the new government] won't be legitimate." Watson proposed that women be granted a more vocal role in the act of constitution drafting. Norman Leatherwood, Executive Director of Shelter for Life, argued that participation in the act of nation building should extend to all Afghans. He explained that by building a road or a home, Afghans of all ethnic and tribal backgrounds will have a stake in the future of their nation. But funding for such projects has been inadequate, according to Professor Goodson who said that funds for Afghanistan are "lagging behind Iraq." Congress made a strong financial commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan through the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act, which allocated $3.3 billion in economic and military assistance. However, many panelists said that the funds are not reaching the appropriate groups within Afghanistan. Professor Barnett Rubin of New York University said the Afghan Minister of the Interior has "only $7 million in the Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan, though he estimates that he needs over $100 million." Also complicating the financial and security situation is the growth of the opium trade. The drug trade in Afghanistan has continued to grow in recent years and prices have shot up from $50 per kilo of opium to $550 per kilo. Bernard Frahi, the Chief of the Operations Branch of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, said that while "there is no quick fix," better law enforcement will lead to better security. Frahi said that "in macro-economic terms, while the value of the opium harvest in 1990 was about $150 million a year, in 2002 such revenue reached $1.2 billion, an amount that matches that total assistance provided last year by the international community." According to Chairman Hyde, increasing security is the biggest challenge to securing financial support. "If the United States wants to see donors stay continuously engaged, then we have to do a better job working with the Afghans to achieve security," he said. (The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
Copyright 2014 Q Madp www.OurWarHeroes.org