PDA

View Full Version : US envoy warns of Taleban return




zimv20
Jan 19, 2004, 03:39 PM
link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3402813.stm)


US envoy warns of Taleban return
By the BBC's Lyse Doucet

The US aid co-ordinator for Afghanistan has warned that unless donors step up aid efforts, the Taleban will be back.

Speaking to the BBC on a visit to London, William Taylor said the international community had to make clear its long-term commitment.

"The Taleban say the Americans have the watches and the Taleban have the time. We have to prove them wrong," he said.

The US is pressing European governments for cash ahead of an Afghan funding conference scheduled for early March.

Confidence

Washington recently more than doubled its assistance for this year to $1.6bn.

But some European governments say they do not want to be pushed into making new commitments when the US is trying to define the agenda in its election year.

Mr Taylor, the Department of State's special representative for donor assistance to Afghanistan, said that was "a very good reason for the Europeans to step up their contributions so that it is not an American show".

After meeting British officials in London, he expressed confidence other donors would come up with new funds.

The Afghan Government hopes to raise much larger sums of money than the $4.5bn pledged in Tokyo in 2002 shortly after the Taleban were toppled.

The US co-ordinator admitted the Tokyo estimate of Afghanistan's needs had been "done in a hurry" but he was not sure the Afghan Government would get the $15bn to $20bn it may ask for.

One British source said even if the Americans had their own agenda "there was undoubtedly a need to give more money". But some other donors are still reluctant to give the long-term commitment the Afghan Government says its needs.

Mr Taylor also conceded the pace of reconstruction had to be urgently stepped up.

A recent study by the American non-governmental agency, Care, and the Centre on International Co-operation in New York pointed out that only 1% of Afghanistan's reconstruction needs had been met so far, due to donor delays and security concerns.

Military needs

The outgoing UN envoy for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, recently said 5,000 to 10,000 more coalition troops would be needed to make south and south-east Afghanistan safe for the delivery of aid.

Mr Taylor said he believed that figure was "overstating the case".

But he admitted increasing attacks by Taleban forces in that part of Afghanistan demanded a greater international military presence.

He said the demand would now be met by the expansion of small military teams, known as provincial reconstruction teams, or PRTs, a move some aid agencies say is not enough.

He also dismissed growing concern that Afghanistan was not safe enough or ready to hold parliamentary and presidential elections this summer, as called for in the 2001 Bonn accord.

"The message from Afghans is loud and clear," Mr Taylor said.

"Afghans think they were promised, and think they deserve, the right to choose their own leaders."

When asked about concerns that the US call for "acceleration" was linked to the timetable of American elections in November, Mr Taylor said: "We all remember what happened in the United States [on 11 September, 2001] and where those attacks came from.

"That's what motivates us to accelerate our work."



mactastic
Jan 19, 2004, 04:11 PM
Let's just hurry up and get those roads built so we can get the trucks with the pipeline-laying equipment in.

Outside Kabul and the great job we're doing laying one-layer-of-asphalt roads, is there much else to indicate we are making progress in rebuilding Afghanistan?

zimv20
Jan 19, 2004, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
is there much else to indicate we are making progress in rebuilding Afghanistan?

the 'progress', imo, is how far afghanistan has been moved from public attention in the US

SPG
Jan 20, 2004, 03:06 AM
Afghanistan and the real effort to find terrorists was pushed aside for the Iraq adventure...and now for what?
The Taliban is resurging, Al Queda is still operating freely on the Afghan Pakistan frontier, and now Iraq is set to become a fundamentalist islamic state*. Yup, I reckon that's the plan.

*Iraq is in chaos, Al Sistani is calling the shots, sharia (Islamic law) is being instituted, and junior wants out before the election. The perfect recipe for another unstable islamic state.

Desertrat
Jan 20, 2004, 07:25 AM
It's not cheap to deal with folks who are willing--and sometimes eager--to die for that in which they believe. Those who strongly believe in the Sharia are indeed in a war against anything perceived to be "Western" or secular in nature.

Insofar as building pipelines across Afghanistan, would that not be a source of income to the country? Rental fees for the right of way, some fee on a per-barrel basis, plus jobs during construction and then a lesser, permanent number, with operations. Seems to me that's better than exporting opium poppies, or the equivalents of camel saddles and brass bells.

'Rat

mactastic
Jan 20, 2004, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Insofar as building pipelines across Afghanistan, would that not be a source of income to the country? Rental fees for the right of way, some fee on a per-barrel basis, plus jobs during construction and then a lesser, permanent number, with operations. Seems to me that's better than exporting opium poppies, or the equivalents of camel saddles and brass bells.

Yes 'Rat, there will be benefits from building a pipeline, not the least of which is at least one road connecting the country. There will be some jobs created, and some people will get wealthy off it. I just wonder whether that's the best use of the money, or if more people could be helped by doing something else with it. And I wonder how many people close to the current president will make money off the pipeline, and how much they make compared to what the Afghans get out of it.

zimv20
Jan 20, 2004, 10:46 AM
i understand afghan poppy growers make enough to feed their families. not sure a pipeline would prove the trickle down theory.

Desertrat
Jan 20, 2004, 03:24 PM
Sorta "Dangfino". I'm assuming the income from any such project will go into the Afghan equivalent of a General Revenue fund. How it's spent is up to their government...

'Rat

zimv20
Jan 20, 2004, 04:36 PM
until the taleban came along, afghanistan didn't have much of a centralized gov't. regions were run by warlords. for many regions, poppy was the best source of income.

from what i understand, any monies that came to kabul didn't find its way to the farmers, and largely didn't make it out of kabul. assume typical corruption.