October 15, 2005

THE UN Security Council has voted to extend the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan for a year. This might be a proper occasion to review the achievements made so far by those who are occupying Afghanistan for the last three years and spending billions of dollars that have flowed into the country as foreign aid.

According to media reports, most of Afghanistan’s estimated 28 million people subsist on less than two dollars per day. Over 40 per cent of economic growth of the country depends directly on the opium industry.

According to Jean Mazurelle, the Director of the World Bank for Afghanistan, 15 per cent of the population of the country receives 80 per cent of the benefits of growth. No wonder, therefore, the spectacular growth rates of GDP, ranging between 29 per cent in 2002 and 16 per cent in 2003 as quoted by the Afghan and US authorities appear to be little more than statistics that are not worth the paper they are printed on. Compare this with the modest figures of around 8 per cent for China and 6 to 7 per cent for India and you need nothing more to prove the cruel game of statistics.

While a majority of people in these two most populous countries of the world are noticeably better off through the high GDP growth rates, the masses in Afghanistan are standing still at the same level of living where they were a hundred years ago. True to the World Bank and IMF performance everywhere else, including Pakistan, the elusive “trickle down effect” is not visible anywhere in this wretched country, except inside the mansions of the warlords and the ruling elite.

Afghanistan still remains among the lowest five per cent of the countries that have the highest infant and maternal mortality rates, lowest human development index, lowest literacy rates and the highest percentage of people living below poverty line. Afghanistan continues to hold the dubious title of having lowest female literacy rate in the world.

Afghanistan needs to be studied as an eye opener by those economists, both from affluent and poor countries, who are still sticking to the belief that the only reason poor countries fail to reap the benefits of foreign aid and GDP growth is poor governance by their leaders. Well, governance in Afghanistan is being provided by the US.

Whatever euphemisms are employed for the purpose, the whole world knows that Afghanistan is under the occupation of the United States, exactly as the colonies were once upon a time occupied by the European powers. The Afghan masses can hardly be blamed if the United States government has decided to instal a puppet government there for certain political reasons or for building up its own image in the world.

Many colonial powers including Britain did the same — setting up semi-autonomous governments under their firm control. But they did it in their own interest to pass on the hassles of local rule to the natives while enjoying the benefits of occupation themselves. The US is trying to do the same. While there will always be a difference of opinion about the role of the colonialists, one can say with a certain degree of certainty that the Europeans did a much better job of governing their colonies than the United States.

Literally billions of dollars have flowed into Afghanistan since 2001, and most of them coming from countries and organizations other than the United States. The US government, exercising exclusive and total control over the country, had a rare opportunity to show to the world what miracles could occur in a small piece of land and that where neither money nor governance was in short supply. Instead, it has exhibited how easy it is to convert a small mess into an unmanageable disaster. As if to prove that Afghanistan was not an isolated case which could be explained away by giving believable reasons, it went ahead and repeated exactly the same ‘skills’ in Iraq.

As a country directly ruled by the leaders of the world’s most powerful and advanced nation, Afghanistan should have become something of a haven for foreign investors and traders. Instead, direct foreign investment is a puny two per cent per year. After all, why would any one risk going into a country rife with insurgency and revolt covering three-fourth of the country. Which, of course, belies the other claim lately being floated through the western media that there is no insurgency in Afghanistan.

There are many lessons to be learnt from Afghanistan. The hawks in the United States administration need to learn that force, however potent and fierce, cannot always provide satisfactory solution. They might also begin to understand that the world has changed a lot since the days of the Wild West, when force alone was enough to expand the frontiers of a growing nation. The Europeans learnt their lessons in the second half of the last century, when they made their exits. If colonizing countries had continued to be a profitable business, more than half the world would still be in chains. Must the Americans re- learn the same lessons the hard way?

The other nations should also learn from Afghanistan. It is strange that the vote in the UN Security Council that extended the stay of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan for a year was unanimous. In the 18th and 19th centuries, when stronger countries colonized weaker nations, their actions were considered neither illegal nor immoral. There was no League of Nations and no United Nations.

The world has changed since then. Colonizing is considered wrong, illegal and immoral. Weaker nations may still not be able to defend themselves against the stronger ones, but no one, not even the powerful nations, considers that occupying another country is a just or acceptable act. Today, even the weakest nation can speak up against the most powerful country and get its opinion registered and respected.

This is a sea change from what it was in the recent past. The forum for protesting against illegal occupation is the United Nations. Weaker nations should at least stand up to be counted in the UN and other such forums. Security Council members know well that the so-called International Security Assistance Force is nothing but an occupation force, led and controlled fully by the Americans. They could at least call a spade a spade.

And lastly, the ruling elite in Afghanistan also need to learn a lesson from history. No country has been made rich by another country. If anything, the reverse is always true. The same is happening to their country. The occupiers will never be able to improve their living standards, even if they make a sincere effort. Last three years’ figures show it plainly. The hard work has to be done by the natives themselves.

But then, politicians never learn from history. History, therefore repeats itself.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)