In a New York Times op-ed published last week, two Afghan scholars, Haseeb Humayoon, a student at Middlebury College, and Nader Nadery, a member of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, chastised President Obama for not doing enough to step up the U.S. support of democracy in Afghanistan. In a year when Afghans go to the polls, they point out, the U.S. must support the fledgling Afghan democracy, particularly as conservative elements from within the country are threatening to roll back the clock on human rights.
Despite Nadery and Humayoon's criticism of what they perceive as indifference from Americans towards democracy in Afghanistan, which apparently enjoys wide support amongst Afghans, they conclude their opinion piece with the following bit of wisdom: “Democracy and progress are not products to be packaged and exported to Afghanistan. Afghans have to fight for them.” Thus, the West can only do so much.
But are we doing enough to prepare Afghans for that fight? U.S.-led coalition forces overran the Taliban without the help of Afghan allies who could be described as organized enough to create a democratic system. Therefore, outside help is most likely necessary if Afghanistan wishes to create their version of a democracy over the next decade or so. We must guide the Afghans, not in a “White Man's Burden” sort of way, but rather in a “teach a man to fish” sort of way - that is if democracy enjoys the support that Nadery and Humayoon say it does.
There is no doubt that Afghanistan's economy, ravaged by nearly three decades of war and bad governance, should be bolstered by the U.S. and its allies for democracy to take hold there. The U.S. Agency for International Development estimates that half of Afghans lived in absolute poverty after the Taliban's defeat – a statistic that does not bode well for a country with a history of rampaging warlords. But the cases of China and India prove that wealth doesn't necessarily lead to democracy. India has been a democracy since its independence, when it was much poorer than it is now, while wealth in China is mostly serving the cause of nationalism, not democracy.
Though it may not lead to democracy, wealth can certainly lead to peace and stability, which is crucial to getting Afghans to work towards crafting a state to their liking. So America, what is your government doing to get Afghanistan back on its feet economically?
Most importantly, the U.S. government is promoting health and education in the country in an attempt to win the country's youngest hearts and minds. The youth of Afghanistan, after all, aren't only the future leaders of the country, but they are imminently reachable. If they grow up seeing the U.S. as a positive influence, the chances of long term survival of an Afghan democracy will increase greatly – extremists will have fewer recruits.
According to USAID, since the fall of the Taliban, the number of children enrolled in schools has increased from 900,000 to 6 million. Infant mortality has dropped by 22%. Not a bad start. Now how about the parents?
If the USAID statistics are correct, chances are that while these kids are at school, their parents work in some sort of agricultural capacity – farms employ some 80% of the country's labor force. Since the Taliban's fall, the United States government has been attempting to boost the income of Afghan farms. Of course this would not be possible with out revamping Afghanistan's infrastructure, and as such, USAID's approach to rural rehabilitation is multifaceted.
First, USAID is helping farmers get their products to market by improving transportation – 2,700 km of roads have been rebuilt since 2001. Secondly, they are improving irrigation systems, which have already brought benefits to 15% of the arable land in Afghanistan. Thirdly, USAID is offering to help modernize technology used by farmers.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, USAID, is providing financial services to farmers through their Agricultural, Rural Investment and Enterprise Strengthening (ARIES) project. ARIES provided small and medium sized Afghan farmers with about $22 million in loans in the 2007 fiscal year. There is no better long-term strategy than giving people the opportunity to better themselves. Microloans could be crucial in not only developing Afghanistan's economy, but they could also provide a source of pride and dignity to Afghanistan's poor. Besides, some microfinance institutions have near immaculate repayment rates (unlike certain Fannie Maes I know).
Despite USAID's achievements, the situation in Afghanistan is far from ideal. First of all, it is not clear what percentage of Afghanistan's farmers are cultivating poppies that eventually make up 90% of the world's opium supplies. Secondly, despite the focus on agricultural development, a third of Afghans live in urban settings. Perhaps so many Afghans work on farms – particularly ones used in the drug trade – because opportunities are so sparse in Afghanistan's urban centers. Perhaps USAID should increase their focus on aiding Afghan towns and villages. An example of deficient outreach to Afghanistan's towns and cities, the Afghan Credit Support Program, a program not unlike Aries, only lent $6.6 million over two years and only to people living in Kabul. The ACSP also expired after the 2008 fiscal year.
There is little doubt that there is still much development work to do in a country that President Obama described as being located in “the most dangerous place in the world.” Despite all the cheery statistics mentioned above about USAID-provided assistance, it is not clear just how effective that assistance has been. Besides, USAID's mission in Afghanistan has had well-documented planning problems and is reluctant to properly monitor contracts. Furthermore, regardless of any U.S. strategy, if the notoriously suspect President Karzai wins another term in August under questionable circumstances, eight years of work by Afghans and Americans may be lost overnight.
In the aftermath of the August election, which NATO forces must ensure is conducted in a fair manner, we should be able to more accurately assess the situation in the country. Will it only allow us to to focus on stability and defeating Islamic fundamentalism? Shall we focus more on damage control? Or should we be fully supporting a liberal Afghan democracy? These are questions that, ultimately, Afghans must answer. But we must continue to try and help rebuild their country so that their decision is not only an informed one, but one that is not made under duress.
Also Interesting:
Get our Newsletter!
Click here to sign up and stay informed