Don't Punish Afghans Twice Over | Opinion

The debate in the wake of the recent killing of Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in Afghanistan, more or less on the first anniversary of U.S. military withdrawal, has focused on broken promises by the Taliban authorities and the viability of "over-the-horizon" security planning. Almost completely missing has been the perspective of the Afghan people, and the responsibilities of the West and the international system more generally, to them.

The people of Afghanistan did not choose their government. Nor were they involved in the Doha negotiations on the withdrawal of American and other NATO troops. Nor have they voted for the policies changing the country, including the question of education for girls over the age of 13.

So much for what are now domestic political matters. But the economic shock therapy being visited on the country is an international matter with regional, political as well as economic consequences. And it makes no sense for the Afghan people to be punished, again, for the decisions of others.

It is obvious that the country has to transition from a war economy, where 43 percent of GDP and 75 percent of government spending came from outside, to a new equilibrium. But that is no excuse for poverty rates projected at over 90 percent, a banking system in a state of collapse, many salaries of teachers and nurses unpaid and children going hungry. The presence of al-Zawahiri in Kabul does not change that. The Afghan people should not be punished twice over.

The real choice is not whether or not the U.S. should aid the Taliban government. Nor is it about "leverage" on the decisions of the new authorities, of which there is little. The issue is whether or not to do what is in our power to help the Afghan people, or abandon them as their needs grow.

In the last year, the number of people in need of humanitarian assistance has jumped by one third. Nearly 20 million Afghans—half the population—are experiencing acute hunger. Over 8.7 million Afghans are nearing famine. That is more than any other country and on par with all of drought-stricken Somalia, Ethiopia, and Kenya combined. This year, famine conditions were seen in Afghanistan for the first time since records began over a decade ago. Afghan people are now spending 90 percent of their income on food and 97% of the population is expected to be living well below the poverty line in the second half of this year.

Humanitarian agencies like the International Rescue Committee have expanded their response. Over the past year, the IRC has scaled up, now with over 7,000 staff, 99 percent Afghan and over 40 percent female, operating across 12 provinces to provide vital services. Security is in the main much better, since the war is over, but the socio-economic situation is much worse.

A recent Civis Analytics/IRC survey revealed that 75 percent of Americans agree on maintaining or increasing aid to Afghanistan. That's an impressive indication of the debt that people feel is owed, not just to Afghans but to those who committed and sacrificed in that country. Certainly the aid package needs to increase, since it is funded at less than half the level that the U.N. deems necessary.

But aid flows cannot make up for an economy deprived of oxygen. That is why we call for a new economic approach, not just humanitarian aid. With winter again on the horizon, there is no time to lose. That is going to take more than bridging the gaps in aid. And the longer the delay, the greater the humanitarian aid bill as well as the human misery.

Six months ago, there seemed to be agreement on the steps necessary to stabilize the Afghan economy. The private sector needed to be assured that the sanctions regime applied only to contact with named individuals not with state institutions. The World Bank needed to pay salaries of essential civil servants (half of whom are teachers). Assets frozen in the U.S. needed to be released to re-capitalize the banking system. The U.N.'s humanitarian exchange facility needed to be up and running to help cash flow in the economy. Banking notes stuck in Poland needed to reach Afghanistan. And international help was needed to support the running of the finance ministry and Central Bank.

None of this will make Afghanistan anything other than a poor country. But six months on, all but the first measure is partially or completely unfulfilled. That is how you end up with such extreme levels of humanitarian need. Of course the governing authorities in Kabul can help or hinder. But the measures do not depend on diplomatic recognition of new governing authorities. Some are wholly within the power of international institutions or countries like the U.S.

There are geopolitical as well as moral issues at stake here. Western military left Afghanistan. But the gains made by the people of Afghanistan have not yet been erased. They will be on current trends. Afghans were promised that military withdrawal would not be followed by political and economic abandonment. Fail in that, and we betray ourselves as well as them.

David Miliband is the president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee. He was previously the U.K. foreign secretary.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.