EurasiaNet Business & Economics - US Placing Greater Emphasis on Economic Stabilization in Afghanistan

BUSINESS & ECONOMICS

US PLACING GREATER EMPHASIS ON ECONOMIC STABILIZATION IN AFGHANISTAN

Ahmed Rashid 9/06/02

Amid signs of rising instability, underscored by the recent Kabul car bombing and the assassination attempt against interim President Hamid Karzai, the United States is readjusting its strategic priorities for Afghanistan’s stabilization. The US military is shifting its focus away from the pursuit of suspected terrorists, and is instead placing greater emphasis on helping Karzai’s administration promote political and economic security. American officials are also urging wealthy countries to speed up their promised funding for the reconstruction of the country.

The broadening of the US approach from a purely military approach to one that also embraces other aspects of rebuilding Afghanistan is being welcomed by the Afghan government, the United Nations and several European countries including Britain. The United States had faced increasing disapproval in recent months with critics asserting that the campaign against terrorism required as much emphasis on reconstruction as it did in rooting out the remnants of al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

At the Tokyo conference in January, international organizations and donor states pledged $ 4.5 billion in aid for Afghanistan. But Karzai’s administration has yet to received most of the promised assistance.
"Barely 30 percent of what was promised for this year [international reconstruction aid] has been delivered. Clearly there are major aspects of this that have implications not only for the daily welfare of the people, but also for the general security situation," Deputy US Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said in an interview. "I would like to see a much bigger effort made in rebuilding [Afghanistan’s] infrastructure."

Improving follow-up on economic assistance commitments may be taking on even greater importance following two destabilizing incidents on September 5. In Kabul, a car bomb detonated in the city center, killing at least 26 and wounding 100. Meanwhile, in the southern city of Kandahar, which during the Taliban era was a major center of support for the radical Islamic movement, an assassination attempt against Karzai left at three dead, including the suspected gunman and a presidential bodyguard. Security forces in Afghanistan reportedly made at least 17 arrests by September 6 in connection with the assassination attempt. With the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks approaching, some analysts and officials worry about more attacks in the coming days.

Wolfowitz questioned the perception that Afghanistan is growing unstable. "It is important not to exaggerate the [security] problem, not in the interest of protection our [Washington’s] reputation, but because too much defeatist talk has a way of having a harmful effect in itself," said Wolfowitz, who was interviewed prior to the September 5 incidents. "The situation in Afghanistan is vastly better than it was a year ago, and it is not collapsing."

Nevertheless, recent developments have encouraged the United States to reconsider its stance on the use of the International Security Force for Afghanistan (ISAF), Wolfowitz indicated. He said Washington no longer opposed the expansion of ISAF to other cities beyond Kabul. �’We are looking very seriously at what might be done if we get more contributions to ISAF. There are some suggestions that expanding ISAF in Kabul might be a good thing also,’’ said Wolfowitz.

�’The big obstacle remains that we are having difficulty finding someone to take over when the Turks leave at the end of their six month period. At the moment the issue is sustaining ISAF first. Expanding it is valuable, but it cannot be the first priority,’’ he added.

Turkey now leads the ISAF contingent, comprising about 4,500 troops from 19 countries. The international force is responsible at present for security in Kabul. Karzai and UN officials in January began calling for the expansion of ISAF to five other Afghan cities. At that time, Washington opposed expansion of the ISAF mandate, fearing that it would interfere with the US military’s campaign to crush al Qaeda resistance in the mountainous areas of Afghanistan along the Pakistani border. When the expansion proposal was first made, several European countries expressed willingness to commit more troops. Now that expansion appears politically feasible, however, European nations seem to have lost their desire to deploy additional peacekeepers to Afghanistan.

The Pentagon is exploring several tactical options, including the development of mobile ISAF forces to help �’transitional security in some places where it is needed’’ � a suggestion first proposed several months ago by Major General Sir John McColl, the British general who led ISAF until June. UN Special Representative to Afghanistan Lakhdar Brahimi also endorsed this concept

There are no US troops in the ISAF force. But the United States contributes air power, transportation and emergency evacuation for all ISAF forces in Kabul. Washington also is subsidizing Turkey’s ISAF participation. In addition, US military advisors are playing a prominent role in forging a new Afghan national army.

Some observers question the viability of the US effort to build the Afghan army’s capacity, given the fact that Washington is at the same time assisting warlords that oppose the centralization of military and political power. Wolfowitz insisted that such a dual-track policy was not contradictory. �’If they [the warlords] want the economic benefits from economic assistance than they have to cooperate in various ways. � It is 23 years of civil war that bought us to this condition and its not something you can reverse by snapping your fingers as much as you would like to,’’ Wolfowitz contended.

Editor�s Note: Ahmed Rashid is a journalist and author of the books "Taliban: Militant Islam and Fundamentalism in Central Asia" and "Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia."

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.