English | دری

Risk billions of dollars of aid or sign security pact, Karzai is warned

in Afghan Business

Risk billions of dollars of aid or sign security pact, Karzai is warned

President KarzaiAfghanistan’s future stability and development is tied to the outcome of the Bilateral Security Pact, which President Hamid Karzai is tenaciously refusing to sign, despite receiving approval from the 2,500-member Loya Jirga.

NATO and US officials in Brussels warned Afghan President that his refusal would put at risk future military and development aid for his country.
US Ambassador to NATO Douglas Lute said the signed pact could ultimately bring more than USD 8 billion for Afghan security forces and development assistance after NATO ends its combat mission at the end of 2014.

He added non-military development aid totaling some USD 4 billion a year could be at risk as well, as donors would be hesitant to contribute, given concerns over corruption that would most likely be at its peak, if there was no US and alliance presence to ensure it was spent as intended.

On Monday, Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hosyar Zebari hinted that Iraq needed help from the US to overcome its security challenges following a wave of sectarian violence. Iraq could not agree on terms of a similar security accord with the US in 2011.

There are fears that Afghanistan could face similar destabilization path as Iraq without a continued US presence, if Afghan forces are not fully capable of taking the entire country’s security responsibility.



Related Articles

Ban Ki-moon underscores employment opportunities for Afghans

U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon once again called on the international community to ensure availability of livelihood opportunities and availability of

Lack of government support discourages investment in Bamyan

Private sector investment in Bamyan is witnessing a down trend in recent years. Executive Director of the Afghanistan Chamber of

Inauguration of One-Stop Shop at Kabul Airport

In a major step toward facilitating exports by air, the Afghan government inaugurated a One-Stop Shop (OSS) in the Hamid

2 comments

Write a comment
  1. Osman
    Osman 4 December, 2013, 04:05

    So I understand correctly: US is blackmailing us to sign a contract to ensure their presence in Afghanistan, in turn for $8Billion? $4Bil for security, which most likely their own military companies would get contracts for, and the other $4Billion for civil construction?

    And if the US military stays in Afghanistan, then it would ensure that we have “no more” corruption?

    I am wondering who can believe such claims. US was in Afghanistan in the past 12 years or so, how come they did not prevent corruption and ensured that all monetary help was spent where intended too?

    If US is sincere with helping to build Afghanistan, then it should do so without pre-conditions. We have tried to build Afghanistan in the past 12 years and it did not work. So let the people of Afghanistan decide how they want to build their future, rather then the future be dictated.

    We should stand behind our leader united.

    Reply this comment
  2. Jan J. Mudder
    Jan J. Mudder 10 December, 2013, 01:13

    Osman, you have built a nice little straw man argument (that Americans are promising no corruption), and you have quite thoroughly trounced it. The reality though, is that you reject the “good” in the hopes of the “perfect,” which doesn’t exist. Do you think that Afghanistan would be more or less corrupt if the U.S. had not been involved over the past dozen years? You seem to assume that it’s possible for a wealthy foreign country to come in and clean up the corruption, but is that realistic? What level of totalitarian control would it require for the U.S. or anyone else to do that? Do you really want that?

    On the other side, do you realize that the American people are absolutely sick of spending money and lives in Afghanistan? The hope for a security agreement is to prevent a backslide into a greater chaos, such as what has happened in Iraq. If you think that U.S. aid and support comes with too many strings and conditions, how exactly does it become “blackmail” for the U.S. to say that it would no longer want to be giving money to your government. What, exactly, is the goal for Afghanistan? Do you plan to be dependent on foreign support indefinitely? Can you identify a single country in the world who gets significant foreign aid WITHOUT having systemic corruption?

    You’re naive to what the future portends, and I hope that you don’t get what you wish for.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.