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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS