Featured in The Pryer.
The run-up to the United States presidential election is already upon us, with the recent announcement of Paul Ryan as the Republican vice-presidential candidate.
One issue that candidates have been less vocal about is Afghanistan and American military forces. Earlier this year Britain’s defence minister announced plans to cut the British forces by more than half amongst shouts in the House of Commons that Britain can no longer afford such an army. One wonders which route the American president will take, how this will affect Afghanistan and whether the US can maintain such a foothold in the Middle East.So far the two presidential candidates, Obama and Romney, have discussed the issues of the healthcare proposals Obama’s administration put forward (so-called ‘Obamacare’), the role of women in society and, only this week, a Republican party member was discussing the explosive topic of abortion.
Under the Obama administration, the United States has pledged to support Afghanistan for ten years after the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel in 2014. The announcement of this partnership in April of this year raised interesting questions about the nature of nation-building and aid, as well as continuing U.S. interests in the state and region.
While the partnership sent a message to the Afghan people that the West will not abandon them, it was seemingly also a warning to the Taliban and neighboring states that a Western departure will not be an opportunity to make mischief.
Cynically speaking, the announcement was timely for President Obama given the controversies that have marred America’s relationship with Afghanistan—the burning of Korans by U.S. soldiers, the recent release of photographs showing soldiers posing with Afghan bodies, and the murderous rampage of Staff Sergeant Robert Bales.
The promise of continued American support signifies an attempt to assuage such tensions while making a graceful exit, but one must wonder; if Obama secures a second term, is a long-term influx of American aid what is needed in Afghanistan?
Writing in the Guardian in November 2011, Bill Easterly warned of the American tendency to use development initiatives as opportunities to strengthen defence. Easterly suggests that the American habit of providing aid to war-torn and fragile states in the interest of national security is “misguided.”
Instead the focus should be on “areas with a better track record—health, education, infrastructure, and clean water and sanitation—operating in societies where war, repression and corruption do not make it pointless for aid to operate.”
Obama has continued an aid legacy that according to Easterly is ineffective, would a second term unhindered by the need to consider re-election prospects change this? Would Republican Romney offer a different perspective on the topic of aid and Afghanistan?
Perhaps a more potent question that rises from the American pledge is: will it even work? Speaking at Carnegie Council in 2011, Francis Fukuyama discussed the problems that arise when outside influences attempt to help a nation rebuild itself: “I don’t think we realize how difficult it is, how many resources it takes, and how long a process it is.”
Economist Dambisa Moyo is more specific in her criticism of outside influence, stating that the problem with aid is that citizens cannot hold their governments fully accountable as the agendas of aid donors often influence any decision made.
At the time of the announcement the main question was: in the case of Afghanistan, will the American partnership hinder government with hidden agendas or will Afghanistan benefit from the protection of the U.S from potential threats?
Today I am asking, will the pledge change under a new President and why are the candidates remaining quiet over an issue that until recently was front page news?
No comments:
Post a Comment