| |
Contributions from
the Column
Studies and reports
Afghanistan: international aid under fire
Paradigm change in fight against hunger
Poverty reduction and higher education
07/2005 |
|
[ Interview with Masood Karokhail, Swiss Peace, Afghanistan ]
“We need more interaction
between donors and the Afghan people”
In June two suicide attacks hit the southern Afghan town of Kandahar. Many see this as a new escalation of terror. Masood Karokhail, a Pashtun, heads an office in Gardez in the province of Paktia, that, on behalf of Swiss Peace and the German Heinrich Böll Foundation, aims to bring the government as well as development organisations into contact with local tribal leaders. D+C/E+Z asked Mr. Karokhail to elaborate on the perspectives of his country and the role of international donors.
Mr. Karokhail, do you fear that the security situation in Afghanistan might deteriorate and become even as bad as in Iraq?
No. The situation in Afghanistan is not comparable to Iraq. I think the increase in terrorist attacks in the last couple of weeks has two main reasons: first, the insurgents try to destabilise the parliamentary elections later this year. Second, we have the drug eradication programme, initiated by the Afghan government. I don’t see Afghanistan slipping into complete anarchy like Iraq.
What must be done to prevent the security situation from worsening?
Most importantly, we have to get rid of all unofficial militias and armed military forces across the country. Second, security officials at the provincial level should not serve in their respective native provinces. For example, the police chief in Kandahar should not come from here, but from any other city like Herat. Measures like these could be helpful.
The UN claims that the demobilisation of the militias is almost completed . . .
When we talk about heavy arms this may be true to some extent, but certainly not with regard to light and medium weapons. In addition, in areas like Gardez, where I’m working, there are not enough follow-up projects for the people who have been demobilised. In this sense, the process is not completed at all.
Do terrorists or the Taliban have any support in the Afghan society?
The majority of Afghans don’t have any interest in supporting violence. Rather, the Afghan people are definitely tired of war. Only a small minority is helping the insurgents. If you look back the last three years you see that the security situation has gone up and down. Of course there are a few areas in the south that are considered insecure, and I think the government as well as the UN should focus on them and try to stabilise them.
What are the greatest achievements since the first Bonn conference in December 2001? And what are the greatest challenges in the near future?
The greatest achievement is the political process from the Transitional Government to the presidential election last year. The Afghan people have been highly interested and have fully participated in the Bonn process. The greatest challenge is that the government has to widen its influence to the provincial and the district level. There are still many areas where the government actually is not present.
Is this so because opposition is too strong in these areas?
No, this is not the problem. Rather, the problem is lack of capacities. If you talk to government officials they usually say that the international community is not really helping them and that donors do not provide needed funds for programmes like the Afghanistan Stabilisation Program ASP which is supposed to build proper government buildings in provinces and districts. Of course, the buildings are not the only problem. We also need qualified personnel who can take charge of them.
The cultivation of poppies is one the main economic sectors in Afghanistan. On the other hand, many people consider it as one of the greatest obstacles for stabilising the country. Do you see any way out of this dilemma?
We have to see why farmers grow poppies in the first place. I have noticed at least in the south-east of the country that when people have agreed to get rid of poppy cultivation, alternative crops or assistance from the international community or the government is not coming in timely. To lose a complete harvest season is difficult for a farmer who has to feed his family. There has to be more consistency in drug eradication: what are we giving the farmers instead? In terms of security, not the farmers are the problem, but rather the people involved in the drug mafia or individuals within the government who are running the drug trade. The government should arrest those people first, instead of going after the poor farmers. Right now we are just trying to make the international community happy by getting rid of drugs. That may not be quite effective and, besides, the Afghan government’s first responsibility is towards its people.
Don’t you see the danger that people who are in the drug trade would violently resist efforts to stop them?
Sure, not only the Taliban, but also the narcotics business is responsible for violence in Afghanistan. On the other hand, we are talking about a very specific group of people who are responsible. If the government with the help of NATO would act decisively they could arrest these people in a few days . . .
So one knows who they are?
It’s like an open secret. If the government wouldn’t know who the important figures are, it would be quite dangerous. If the government and the international community wanted to arrest them they could do so.
How do you value the contribution of international donors to stabilisation and reconstruction so far?
In my view it has been rather weak. If you ask Afghan people they will tell you that they don’t know where all the money goes. The government, on the other hand, will say that the money goes not to them but to the NGOs. In fact, a large portion of the donor’s money goes back to their own employees. It is a common Afghan joke that the planes with the funds for Afghanistan come in, touch Kabul Airport – and fly out. I don’t see that Afghan life has really been changed by the billions of dollars that have been promised to Afghanistan. Corruption at different levels is another problem. There is simply no proper framework to disburse the funds.
Second, there is no coherence or a common strategy among the donors. The Provincial Reconstruction Teams which are responsible in different parts of the country all have their own strategies. This confuses Afghan people.
Do you see a willingness with the donors to change that?
Not really. I wonder whether Afghans really sit in the driver’s seat. The NGOs, for example, are clearly donor-driven – they do what the donors tell them to do. Also our ministries often have to listen to what the donors are telling them. I have heard lots of stories where the Afghan government came up with projects and the donor community in Kabul rejected them, because they would fund only what they think is popular. The donors must ask themselves how far they support development programmes and not only create new artificial hierarchies by paying high salaries to their employees, thus creating new social problems. Nobody wants to work for the government anymore because he would get even less money than a guard in many of the donor organisations or NGOs.
The Afghan government strongly criticised the NGOs recently and announced to control them more strictly in the future. Is this justifiable?
It is justifiable, but at the same time it is too strong. The government is focusing all its frustration on the NGOs, and that’s not fair. We have a long a history of NGOs working in Afghanistan and helping the people. Even today, it is the NGOs which go out to the remote areas and which are targeted by insurgents. If NGOs weren’t successful, they would not be targeted.
On the other hand, the government is right as well. Afghanistan has no clear legal framework for NGOs. There are no laws that say how NGOs should work, how they should be registered. There are more than 2,000 NGOs in Afghanistan, and when you look closely you see that many of them are in fact construction companies. It is important that the government has a law that makes clear that NGOs have to be non-profit organisations and spend their money transparently. But NGOs should not generally be depicted by the government as bad money-grubbers. NGOs themselves should make it clear that it is their duty to complement the government, and not to compete with it.
How do ordinary Afghans see the work of development organisations?
Especially the bigger international organisations are not well in touch with Afghan communities and the civil society. Their staff is often not allowed to move out of Kabul and often see only their offices and guest houses. For one international aid worker who travels from his guest house to his office two or three policemen and a second car are needed. Sometimes I think that international donors in Afghanistan spend half of their time with protecting themselves rather than with helping Afghanistan. Of course this can create resentments among the Afghan people. On the other hand, organisations which work in the rural areas have a very good image in most cases. In short, there should be more interaction between international organisations and Afghan people.
Questions by Hans Dembowski
and Tillmann Elliesen.
Masood Karokhail
works for Swiss Peace in Afghanistan since 2002, currently as a Governance Manager for the Tribal Liaison Offices, which are co-funded by Heinrich Böll Foundation, in the provinces of Paktia, Paktika and Khost. Before that he was Afghanistan Country Manager with Unilever, Pakistan.
masood-tlo@swisspeace.ch
|
