For all the billions of dollars in foreign aid that have poured into Afghanistan over the past 12 years, Sajeda, her head-to-toe burqa covered in dust, sobs that the world has forgotten the poorest of the poor in the largely untroubled north of the country.
A deadly landslide two weeks ago exposed the extreme poverty in the remote mountainous area and also highlighted one of the paradoxes of Western aid: The northern region which supported the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 has got significantly less help than the south and east, home of the Taliban militants.
Over the past decade, much of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) funding has been spent in the strongholds of the insurgents as part of Washington’s strategy to win the “hearts and minds” of the local population.
Illustration: Yusha
“We are the poorest and most unfortunate people of this country and no one pays attention to us. We are forgotten,” said Sajeda, who lost 12 members of her family in the landslide that killed hundreds in northern Badakhshan Province.
Pointing to simple mud-brick homes that escaped the landslide in the village of Aab Bareek, the 33-year-old screams: “Look at those houses. Are those for the living?”
Time is running out for the mostly Tajik and Uzbek people of Badakhshan, home to the Northern Alliance which helped US forces drive the Taliban from power, to tap international aid.
As Western forces wind down operations in Afghanistan, foreign donors are also pulling back.
At the start of the year, US lawmakers halved civilian aid for Afghanistan, reflecting growing reluctance in US Congress to continue generous aid levels there, concerns about waste and fraud, and frustration with the Afghan government itself. Other foreign donors are expected to make similar cuts.
Over the past decade, a disproportionate share of US aid, which makes about two-thirds of all development assistance in Afghanistan, has ended up in the southern provinces where it has been used to achieve political and military objectives.
A US official said that between 2009 and this year more than 70 percent of USAID spending, amounting to about US$4.7 billion, went to the south and east.
USAID, the lead agency for development assistance, declined immediate comment.
“For much of the intervention, we know that aid was distorted by military priorities, that is pretty clear,” said Matt Waldman, an associate fellow at London think tank Chatham House. “The trouble is, that very often undermines its effectiveness.”
Despite the most expensive reconstruction effort ever undertaken in a single country, Afghanistan remains one of the world’s poorest states.
The poverty headcount varies significantly between the provinces, from as low as 10 percent to more than 70 percent.
It is most severe in the northeast, central highlands and parts of the southeast.
Badakhshan stands as one of the poorest: More than 60 percent of the population there lives below the poverty line, according UN Office Coordination for Humanitarians Affairs, using an index showing it costs US$25 a month to buy enough food to survive.
“Nobody has given money to spend on developmental projects. We do not have resources to spend in our district, our province is a remote one and attracts less attention,” said Argo District Governor Haji Abdul Wadod, whose region includes Aab Bareek. “The government has done a lot, but the international community has paid less attention.”
Badakhshan, once a stopover point on the famed Silk Route, is one of the poorest places on earth. There is just one paved road, dotted with pot-holes, from the provincial capital, Faizabad, to Kunduz, a city three hours to the west that is connected to Kabul and other parts of the country. Most travel in the province is by horse or donkey.
Reconstruction and relief in Badakhshan has mostly fallen on Germany, along with a handful of small non-governmental organizations, which have built among other things small mini-hydro plants on the slopes of the towering Hindu Kush mountains.
“Not only our villagers, but most villagers around Badakhshan are forgotten by the government,” the Aab Bareek village leader Haji Azizullah said. “We haven’t received enough to even buy a box of matches.”
Yet, this year the US contribution to the international relief and reconstruction, starting from 2002, will top US$100 billion, according to US auditors, known as the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR).
That figure is a fraction of the amount the US has spent on its military campaign.
Most of the US money earmarked for relief and reconstruction since 2002 has actually gone to security, leaving just more than US$26 billion to governance and development, and nearly US$3 billion for humanitarian aid, SIGAR said.
A report by the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 2011 said the US was focused on short-term stabilization projects in the south and east in a bid to win “hearts and minds” instead of tackling longer term development projects.
Once the most violent city in Afghanistan, the security of Kandahar city in the south has improved significantly and there have been noticeable improvements to roads, as well as new municipal buildings, schools and health clinics. However, millions of dollars have been skimmed by corrupt contractors and officials.
Multi-million power projects in Kandahar and Helmand, both funded by USAID and both strongholds of the Taliban, have been delayed for years due to issues with contractors.
The irony that most of Washington’s aid has ended up in the “badlands” of the south and east is not lost on the village leader of the landslide-stricken Aab Bareek village.
“They only invest in places where there are insurgents,” Azizullah said. “After something is built the militants then come back in a day, or month, and destroy it.”
Additional reporting by Hamid Shalizi
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with