Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Is USAID Policy Risking Lives in Afghanistan?

5 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
Security for aid workers in Afghanistan is deteriorating, and non-government organizations blame U.S. development policies for putting more lives at risk.

The U.S. Agency for International Development requires that humanitarian-aid projects in Afghanistan support the military's war strategy, a policy that has made aid workers targets for the Taliban, say non-government organizations, or NGOs.

"There are more attacks on aid workers now," said Ann Richard, vice president of government relations at the International Rescue Committee, a non-government organization with programs in Afghanistan. "Security for NGOs has gone in the opposite direction."

USAID policies support the counterinsurgency (COIN) war strategy in Afghanistan, and the agency allocates money to NGOs based on how their projects "contribute to COIN goals," according to agency guidelines for development in Afghanistan. (COIN is shorthand for counterinsurgency, the war strategy used in the Iraq and Afghanistan that coordinates military force with development and peacekeeping efforts to defeat insurgent groups.)

USAID grants require aid organizations to work closely with the military on projects like "battlefield cleanup," where aid workers are sent to clean up post-conflict damage in communities where there was heavy fighting, Richard said.

Merging nongovernment aid projects with military operations has tarnished the apolitical, impartial image critical to the safety of aid workers, many organizations say. The general assumption among Afghans is that aid organizations are working for the U.S. military, said one aid worker who helps run medical programs for an organization that has worked in Afghanistan for more than 15 years.

"If there's anger at the military, then often times the NGOs will have to pay for it," said the aid worker, who asked not to be named for fear he might jeopardize the organization's programs.

Three aid workers were killed in July when suicide bombers attacked the compound of Development Alternatives, a consulting group that helps implement USAID development projects in Afghanistan. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, which officials said was a response to the recent surge of U.S. troops.

"Even the perception of being tied to the military can have tragic results," said Brian Katulis, a national security expert at Center for American Progress.

Development aid has been tied to counterinsurgency since the war strategy was implemented in Iraq during the Bush administration, but only recently have nonprofits started to collectively push back. The Obama administration has ratcheted up aid efforts in Afghanistan, where the need for infrastructure and humanitarian aid far exceeds that in Iraq.

Safety concerns are paramount in Afghanistan, where insurgents are killing civilians at a rate three times higher than they did during the Iraq war, according to a paper released in July by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The Taliban's killing of 10 members of the Christian organization International Assistance Mission on Aug. 5 has escalated fears among aid workers.

"It's not a good situation," said Beth Cole, director of intergovernmental affairs at the U.S. Institution of Peace. "The Taliban are circling Kabul. The days are waning."

Since the start of 2010, there have been 76 attacks on non-government workers in Afghanistan, according to the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office, an independent group that provides security information for humanitarian workers in the country. Fifteen of those incidents, which include violent attacks and abduction, occurred in July.

Several non-government organizations working in Afghanistan have stopped applying for USAID grants and are instead seeking more money from private donors and the European Union, aid workers reported. Still, many organizations say they cannot regain the trust they worked to earn in Afghan communities since long before the 2001 U.S. invasion.

Some argue that the NGOs' blame is misplaced. Because of the increased threat from insurgent groups, aid organizations have to change the way they work in Afghanistan and learn to coordinate with the military.

"You cannot rely on your good relationship with the local communities to keep you safe anymore," said Richard Owens, director for community stabilization at International Relief and Development, who has a background in coordinating military-civilian operations. "In a world where the Taliban exists, all bets are off."

Nonprofits are "naive" to think their association with the military puts them at greater risk, said Andrew Natsios, a professor of diplomacy at Georgetown University and USAID administrator from 2001 to 2006. The Taliban target any organization that is bringing development to Afghanistan, which includes most Western nonprofits in the country, he said.

"Whatever is not 12th century in their worldview is regarded as the enemy," Natsios noted. "What the Taliban is fighting against is modernization."

The Taliban killed the 10 Christian aid workers because it believed they were "spying" and "preaching Christianity," according to media reports. The international group, which included Afghanistan nationals, had worked in the country for more than 30 years.

A senior adviser at one high-profile aid organization working in Afghanistan said his organization had access to Taliban-controlled areas because aid workers spent years proving to insurgents that they did not have a political mission. The organization is rethinking where they can send workers and the type of projects they can do under increased security threats.

Development resources have been funneled to areas in Afghanistan where U.S. military forces are concentrated. Health development programs in other areas of the country have been shut down, replaced by new projects in the south and east, where fighting is the heaviest, said Leonard Rubenstein, a public health professor at Johns Hopkins University and former U.S. Institute of Peace fellow.

The inequitable distribution of aid runs contrary to nonprofit development practices that stress equitable resources across ethnic groups, and has created animosity among some communities "who feel they are being penalized for being peaceful," according to research by Andrew Wilder, an expert on governance and aid in Afghanistan at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Some NGOs fear communities that have lost development projects may lash out at aid workers, creating new conflict in previously stable areas.

"It's actually counterproductive," Rubenstein said. "You're really shooting yourself in the foot."

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.


Filter by:

So from reading this one opinion is that the taliban is using moderm weapons and technology to keep afghanistan at a 12th Centurey level? what did the one aid worker mean when they said the taliban are circling Kabul? Many questions arise from both sides on this issue as far as i am concerned.

August 15 2010 at 6:29 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Why should the US give money to NGO's that do support the win the war strategy? To give moeny to those that do not support you is rediculous. The NGo's should be supplying their people with security. Need the Govt do everything?

August 15 2010 at 3:21 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

The article is not about whether the funds should be allocated at home or abroad. USAID is specifically set aside for foreign aid, and you will be hard pressed to get those funds redirected to domestic programs.

The article is arguing that USAID money is coming with a political agenda, and it is creating a difficult situation for many aid groups who are providing services that don't always follow the stipulations of that agenda.

I agree with a part of the article that these aid organizations should look to get more private funding so they do not have to be hampered by political and military associations. They need to be able to go back to the original definition of NON-governmental organization. Aid should not be withdrawn from areas simply because those areas do not have a large US military force. I would think areas without US military presence would have a far greater need for aid.

August 15 2010 at 1:51 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to eversaban1's comment

That is right, the government will always put people of other countries before the U.S. citizens. Class 8 vets still are not allowed to even sign up for vet medical benifits but we still give away billions per year in aid.

August 15 2010 at 2:07 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply

I don't think all Afgahns want to be "left alone." I'm sure many benefit from the aid that comes from all over the world many and need it, but the problem is that they are basically in - and have been in - a civil war. There has been foreign occupation and general political meddling in that country by other nations for at hundreds of years and while the idea of just leaving them high-and-dry seems cruel, at some point, you do have to let the people stand up and fight for themselves and see how it works out. It's not as simple as that, of course, but the U.S. and other world powers are coming to the point where we can't just stomp down every dictator, can't control world politics and development. We live in an abundant land where we really do have enough resources (food, water, minerals, etc) to survive and thrive and protect our borders if we cut ourselves off from the rest of the world and still be a developed nation. I think it's time for us to focus on using the resources we DO have to the best of our abilities and maybe we won't feel the need to be in other countries to gain power and money and oil in battles that are really only leading to the degration (first moral, now blatantly economic) of our society.

August 15 2010 at 1:42 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

what i am getting at is that we should take care of your own people at home. we got no money to be put overseas anymore. look at all the poor people here. that actually need help and monies to go by on the daily basis. why you keep on insisting things out there when most of us need you here at home. i for one do not want you to be there ok. why don't you make a survey and ask americans if they need or want this war in afganistan anymore. tank you.

August 15 2010 at 1:11 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to BlueWhiteMarble's comment

I don't believe anyone wants war to begin with with the exception of a few. I do believe that we should be there (not iraq) to finish Al quada, taliban since they decided to meddle in us getting Bin Laden. I stand behind our troops and ones I call comrades as i spent 29 yrs trying to protect our freedoms and people from further attacks inside the U.S.

August 15 2010 at 6:34 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

It sounds like the Afghans just want to be left alone. It sounds as though they want to decide for themselves what's best for them rather than having some foreign government do that for them.

August 15 2010 at 12:42 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply

Between aid programs and wars america is being bleed dry.

August 15 2010 at 11:34 AM Report abuse +6 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to kingnus's comment

I have to agree with you on this one and I normally don't agree with you on anything, but you're right, America is broke.

August 15 2010 at 7:23 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Every article, every comment, every thought, about our 'involvement' in Afghanistan should begin with a reminder that WE HAVE NO BUSINESS THERE. It is unimaginable, unacceptable, that our short-sighted military people would INSIST that USAID workers; that their very approach to helping, should support the failed -- and ever failing -- war philosophy of counterinsurgency. How everlastingly stupid.

August 15 2010 at 9:00 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>