Skip to main content

Beyond the White Man's Burden

Alyson Zureick

U.S. contributes to corruption in Afghanistan

By Alyson Zureick - 9 months ago

These days we are hearing a lot about corruption in Afghanistan - from the international press, from policy analysts and even from the United States' top military official in Afghanistan.  The news coverage of the country's recent election in particular leaves the impression that corruption is simply an inherent part of Aghan culture and that there is little that U.S. policy can do to change it.

This view, however, ignores the important role that U.S. policy is playing in promoting corruption in Afghanistan, argues Afghanistan expert Joanna Nathan in Foreign Policy. Nathan notes that, in addition to handpicking many of the current members of the Afghan government, the U.S. government has often fostered a climate of impunity within the country's public institutions. She points out that U.S. agencies in Afghanistan often work at cross-purposes to each other, and that the military has often led the way in empowering leaders who do not have the best interests of the Afghan people at heart. Sometimes military objectives are prioritized above the well-being of ordinary Afghanis, and, as Rajiv Chandrasekaran of the Washington Post has pointed out, large investments in development projects often come to naught.

Nathan's arguments aren't exactly new, but they're an important reminder that, in reality and in the eyes of the Afghan people, the Afghan government is not the only corrupt party in the country. The U.S. government is as well.

Article Rating

Average: No Rating Available (0 votes)  
Labels: Asia - South Central, Diplomacy, Global and Human Security, Human Rights, Peace, Public Institutions, Security, Terrorism, War

3 Comments

 
Post #1
Matthew Bondy Matthew Bondy - 8 months ago

Alyson,

Interesting post. I think it is indeed important to conduct open-minded analysis and research in terms of identifying the sources of corruption in places like Afghanistan. It's important that the nations working to stabilise places like Afghanistan address credible claims of corruption in a way that preserves the integrity and legitimacy of the mission.

On the flip side, the US and coalition security and development work is the art of the possible. It's like the logic of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine (link here): the United States may sometimes have to get in bed with unsavoury characters in order to complete a mission, and this can in principle be justified under some circumstances. (e.g., under the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, the US justifed its support for certain authoritarian leaders because the US viewed supporting certain authoritarian dictators as necessary in the global struggle against Communism.)

One always has to be careful with logic the smacks of 'the end justifies the means'. But one has to be just as careful to not pursue policies that are so set against ethical compromise that they are doomed to fail. Dooming a mission to failure by way of ethical idealism in fact may ethically indict the mission in the first place. (a la Just War doctrine's principle of 'reasonable prospects'.)

Anyway, great work, as always.

M

 
Post #2
Alyson Zureick Alyson Zureick - 8 months ago

Thanks for the comment, Matt! I agree that there is a careful balance to be struck here, and that most of the time the United States will not have "perfect" partners to work with anywhere in the world - including Afghanistan. However, I don't think Judith Nathan was criticizing U.S. involvement with certain partners in Afghanistan just because they are less than ethically or morally perfect. Instead, she was analyzing how U.S. policy has often worked against itself in Afghanistan because of decisions successive administrations have made that encourage the very culture of impunity that they condemn. Part of this is the leaders who have been empowered by the United States and then not held accountable. Another part of it has been the United States' own ineffective policies, which the Afghan people see as a form of corruption. In particular, this includes the numerous failed U.S. development projects that have not brought tangible benefits to the Afghan people.

As always, thank you for taking the time to read and engage with my post! Your feedback is always helpful.

 
Post #3
Peter Wang Peter Wang - 8 months ago

Interesting topic. But how US contributes to corruption Afghanistan?

Would you like to comment?

You must be a member. Sign In if you are already a member.

Viewed 285 times