Dire warnings: New reports caution that Afghanistan could become a failed state unless the international community switches from a military-led approach to doing more about reconstruction, aid and development. (Allauddin Khan/Associated Press)

"Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan."

That's not left-wing peaceniks talking; it's the Atlantic Council of the United States - a high level think-tank in Washington that counts among its ranks ex-diplomats, business leaders and retired generals. On Jan. 31, the council released a short, sharp shock of a report, calling for "urgent action" to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a failed state.

Just a day earlier, there were similarly harsh words from the Afghanistan Study Group, a panel of experts assembled in 2006 to probe international strategy in Afghanistan.

Progress achieved after the fall of the Taliban in 2001, according to the group's report, Revitalizing our Efforts, Rethinking our Strategies, is under serious threat from resurgent violence, weakening international resolve and regional geopolitical challenges.

The message from both reports was that more NATO troops may not be enough to keep Afghanistan from tumbling into a precipice of terror, violence and opium wars. Only a renewed commitment to civilian efforts to alleviate poverty and create jobs for Afghans could buttress an increasingly less effective military campaign.

Doing more for women, children and communities would be at the heart of a new Afghan-centred international aid strategy, say activists and Afghanistan experts. (Bill Graveland/Canadian Press)

The British charity Oxfam said the two U.S. reports were a breath of fresh air. In an open letter sent to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Feb. 1, Oxfam said Afghanistan faced humanitarian catastrophe if the international community didn't change its ways in the country. There was far too much emphasis on skirmishing with the Taliban, and not nearly enough on helping Afghan farmers, the letter said.

"In six days, the U.S. military will spend $600 million US," Oxfam's Sean Kenny told CBC news. "That's more than all of the aid to agriculture in Afghanistan over the past six years. That money could bring peace if it were used to feed Afghans."

Aid workers under fire

Involving military personnel in the delivery of aid and reconstruction is a centrepiece of international efforts in Afghanistan, but Oxfam and other civilian aid workers say it isn't working. The Oxfam letter to Prime Minister Brown points out that the 25 provincial reconstruction teams at work in the country - basically military teams led by military officers and protected by soldiers - have failed in a primary part of their mission, to help the Afghan government deliver relief and services in war torn parts of the country.

The reconstruction teams, or PRTs, as they're known, blur the distinction between soldiers and aid workers, Oxfam says, and put civilians trying to help Afghans in danger of Taliban attacks aimed at foreign military personnel. This aggravates humanitarian needs in the worst-hit areas.

Privately, many aid and development officials have long been uncomfortable working closely with NATO and U.S. forces. "People who've been bombed in a village by coalition aircraft aren't likely to want our help rebuilding," said one veteran worker who asked to remain anonymous. "This linkage between aid and army isn't working."

For Cheshmak Farhoumand-Sims of Saint Paul's University in Ottawa, the U.S. and NATO approach in Afghanistan is worrisome. "There's a focus on security being necessary for development," she says, "but there's a lot less discussion of how development affects security. The two are interdependent.

"How can you build an army and police when people are so poor?" she asks. "The economic situation is getting in the way of so many things."

Security Afghan-style

Besides, according to Afghan-Canadian activist Mirwaiz Nazhat, people in Afghanistan define security differently.

Quote

'... more than bullets or boots on the ground' - Afghan-Canadian activist Mirwaiz Nazhat.

"It's a much broader concept than in the West," he says. "Afghans feel secure when they are free from threats by warlords, but it's more than that. Security means access to laws, no corruption, having fundamental rights, and of course food.

"It's a lot more than bullets or boots on the ground."

As a founder of the Ottawa-based Centre for Afghanistan Progress, Nazhat argues for Canada and other donors to rethink their approach. He wholeheartedly agrees with the conclusions of Oxfam, the Atlantic Council and the Afghanistan Study Group in Washington, that the current Afghan strategy isn't working.

"There's no shortage of money," he says. "Hundreds of millions has been spent. It's a question of priorities. We're spending on the wrong things. You have to ask yourself, why has the world been unable to reconstruct a small country the size of Texas? It's not rocket science."

One problem identified by Oxfam is the tendency of international agencies and donor governments to spend a large portion of their aid budgets on salaries for expatriate consultants and employees in Kabul. About 40 per cent of the money sent to Afghanistan doesn't stay in the country, Oxfam's Sean Kenney says.

"That's far too much unproductive money," he says.

'Listen to Afghans'

Rethinking approaches in Afghanistan could soon become somewhat of a growth industry, with a U.S. presidential election bringing a change in administration next year and growing public unease in NATO countries over military casualties.

Roohullah Rahimi is a consultant on international peacekeeping and Afghan development. Born in Kabul, and now based in Ottawa, he advises Canadian, NATO and United Nations policy makers to bear one thing in mind as they ponder their next moves in Afghanistan. Listen to Afghans, he says.

"Much progress has been made in my country," Rahimi says, "and there's still so much to do. But we have to start involving the Afghan people in decisions. The international community has to start taking a back seat to Afghans in every area, including security, poverty and poppies. Otherwise we risk losing everything we've gained since 2001."

[an error occurred while processing this directive]