Beyond Self-Serving Approaches

If you are noticing a renewed interest in the local media about Afghanistan these days, most likely it is because of your government's foreign policy to 'put Afghanistan first'. How beneficial is this unusually high Afghanistan talk? Be the judge yourself.

There is a devastating and often neglected disconnect between the political and economic interests of 'donor countries' and those of the Afghanistan. After suffering over 24 years of unprecented violence, every Afghan was optimistic about the beginning of a new Afghanistan. Now, some are rethinking this high sense of optimism.

The dreams are simple and yet complex. Afghans dream of having access to the most fundamental human rights: education, shelter, food, peace. Sadly, the escalating violence relives the brutal past Afghans want to put behind and march towards prosperity.

Emerging from decades of conflict both domestic and external actors are responsible. However, most would agree that the international community has a greater responsibility to fulfill the dreams of Afghans.

Instead, the donor agenda has been pushed aggressively while Afghans continue to face the same problems they have grown up with: illeteracy, landmines, unemployment, drug trafficking and loss of mothers and children.

Talking about the loss of every Afghan child because of landmines and the death of a mother each 30 minutes would seem repetitive. Most of these problems could be tackled with a simple prevention or intervention. Despite years of international assistance, the humanitarian necessity has largely lost its significance and continues to undermine the resilient steps towards democracy and freedom.

If Afghanistan's dire needs are most basic rights, what about the donors' agenda? In simple terms, it is the 'political interest' i.e., fight the insurgency. In all this "war", the real needs of an entire generation recovering from decades of conflicts, are largely neglected. The small steps taken by the civil society and the government are definitely praiseworthy but they are in no way sufficient to make the case for a "successful foreign policy story". It's rather a story of neglect, irresponsibility and consistent understimation.

The message could not be any more blunt: educate the young generation, provide employment opportunities, help Afghans eradicate the roots of drug trade, save our mothers and children. After all, much of these problems are caused by the external interference anyways? How many factories producing landmines does Afghanistan have? Who benefits largely from the drug trade?

It is hard to imagine a successful Afghanistan without a holistic and genuine approach to the Afghan reconstruction, one that tackles both the donor and Afghan issues collectively. This disconnect between the donor agenda and the Afghan priorities must be dealt with urgently.

As Alama Iqbal, also known as the Scholar of the East, suggests: the prosperity of Afghanistan brings prosperity to Asia, and its decay brings the decay of Asia. If Iqbal were to witness the realities today, he probably would have rather used 'the world' instead of 'Asia'.

If we have learnt any lessons from the international humanitarian interventions, it may well be that we have have to fully tackle the core of the domestic issues. The West has largely failed in emerging triumphant in Somalia, Kosovo, Rwanda and Sudan.

In the words of Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, former head of the Peacekeeping mission in Rwanda: "[O]ne of the lessons of Rwanda, where 800, 000 Africans were slaughtered ten years ago, is that the international community has failed and continues to fail to pay sufficient attention to the plight of victims in distant lands."

Ironically, Afghanistan is no exception. A mother is dying while giving birth, a child is blown up by a landmine and hundreds of young Afghans are exploited and drawn into conflict zones. This is not the new Afghanistan we all aspired to rebuild.


Related Link:
"The Indicators of Neglect"