LONDON: “We’ve won the war, now let’s win the peace,” was the British Labour party’s slogan after the second world war. In the case of Afghanistan, the Bush administration appears to have adapted that to: “We’ve won the war, now you can pay for the peace.” Even before the US began its bombing campaign against Osama bin Laden last October, 20 years of war, three years of famine and the mediaeval regime imposed by the Taliban had reduced the Afghan economy to a state of collapse.

As George Bush and Tony Blair prepared the world for the retaliation for the attacks on New York and Washington on Sept 11, they insisted that this would not be simply a case of naked revenge. Removing the Taliban would only be one half of the equation - the other half would be reconstructing one of the world’s poorest countries.

Now as initial estimates are prepared for how much this task will cost, the US appears to be having second thoughts. The crunch will come in Tokyo next week, when the UN and the World Bank call on rich countries to start writing the cheques. The bank and the UN estimate that Afghanistan needs at least US dollars 5bn over the next two and half years to begin rebuilding its shattered economy, and US dollars 15bn over 10 years for longer term development.

The UK has promised to make a substantial contribution while Japan, as the host country, is likely to also come up with a significant chunk of aid. Privately, however, UN officials worry that America is preparing to take a back seat in Tokyo and let its allies stump up to pay for the costs of rebuilding Afghanistan.

The Bush administration shows little enthusiasm for repeating what the Truman administration did with the Marshall plan in the late 1940s. This saw the US spend 1 per cent of its national income over four years preventing western Europe from descending into anarchy and starvation.

Afghanistan is a completely different case from Germany, France and Britain in the late 1940s - these countries all had a tradition of market economies, a basic infrastructure and a highly skilled population. Many Afghans live in conditions which have not been seen in Europe for centuries; 70 per cent of the population are malnourished; two-thirds illiterate and only three per cent of girls attend school. Even so, attitudes in the US have changed over the past half-century. The Bush administration has little sympathy for international aid efforts - Treasury secretary Paul O’Neill believes aid budgets often go to waste - and America’s own fiscal position has deteriorated markedly as the economy has slipped in to recession. Given the choice, the White House would rather provide tax cuts for Americans than schools, roads and hospitals for Afghans.

But aid agencies and officials say the needs on the ground in Afghanistan are desperate and are now putting pressure on Washington to deliver on its initial commitment. “This is a dire situation, and frankly, unless it’s dealt with the issue of peace becomes irrelevant,” said James Wolfensohn, the World Bank’s president, on Wednesday.

“You’ll just create another crisis. We are dealing with a situation that is really extreme. The worse thing to do for the Afghans would be to come up with plans and then immediately have them run short.” Wolfensohn said he wanted $15-20 billion for a full reconstruction programme but his priority was to get $5 billion to cover the next two and half years. “If we don’t do that, we are frankly not doing the job as an international community,” he warned.

Having heard of the size of the figures being discussed ahead of Tokyo, Afghans could easily become cynical if they do not see some improvements soon. Winning the war is starting to look easy by comparison with winning the peace. —Dawn/The Guardian News Service.