Afghanistan: could bribery work?
You may have noticed: Afghanistan is not yet a stable, functioning, multi-party democracy.
The recent elections were, shall we say, less than perfect. The military campaign against the Taliban is, how can we put it, still some way short of a declaration of total victory.
So here's a thought: if encouraging change through the ballot box doesn't work - and if waging war doesn't work - what about trying some heavy-duty bribery?
The American military and security analyst Fred Kaplan, of Slate.com, wrote a couple of days ago: "[Bribery] does tend to work, at least in the short run. In the spring and summer of 2003, during the early days of the Iraq occupation, this was how Gen. David Petraeus, then commander of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, pacified much of northern Iraq." (It was also also quite useful, incidentally, when General Petraeus was encouraging Iraqi Sunni militiamen to turn against al-Qaeda.)
And the foreign affairs commentator Fareed Zakaria wrote in the Washington Post: "The central problem in Afghanistan is that the Pashtuns, who make up 45 percent of the population and almost 100 percent of the Taliban, do not feel empowered. We need to start talking to them, whether they are nominally Taliban or not. Buying, renting or bribing Pashtun tribes should become the centerpiece of America's stabilization strategy, as it was Britain's when it ruled Afghanistan."
Does the idea offend you? Do you find it distasteful, even immoral, to use tax-payers' money to bribe local officials and politicians who, all too often, are already corrupt?
Joanna Nathan, who worked in Kabul from 2003 to 2009 first for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting and then as a senior analyst for the International Crisis Group, thinks bribery is a terrible idea. She wrote for Foreign Policy online: "Rented allies are not reliable allies. Simply buying or bribing more commanders of whatever ilk will mean more instability in an environment where entrenched interests in a war economy are already playing the international community -- not the other way around. Money is leverage and the populations of both Afghanistan and the U.S. need to be involved in debating how it is spent, rather than grubby backhanders."
But suppose you agree that the current strategy isn't working. Here are your options: you could send in more troops to try to secure more land and create more space in which the Afghan government and security forces can operate. Or you could just pull out and leave them to it. Or you could try something new.
Option One may well be what the US and UK are about to try. I have no way of knowing whether it will make much difference. Option Two involves a real risk of the Taliban returning to power in Kabul, although that doesn't necessarily mean they'll immediately invite Osama bin Laden back. (It probably does mean, however, that they'll be able to create more mayhem in Pakistan.)
Which brings us to Option Three. Money talks, they say, and it was certainly helpful in Afghanistan back in late 2001, when the US-led anti-Taliban coalition was being assembled. So might it be helpful again now?
Could cash encourage rival politicians to put aside their differences? Could cash encourage militia leaders, insurgents and warlords to switch sides? Could cash encourage local police chiefs to arrest a few more drugs dealers and poppy growers?
I should make it clear: I'm not advocating the use of bribery. I'm simply asking the question: do you think it's worth trying? If you don't, what would you prefer?
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~38~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Robin
"Afghanistan: could bribery work?"
[sarcasm] It has after all worked so well in other places it has been tried - Africa for example and almost every other corrupt dictatorship.[/sarcasm]
I have no idea what cam over you to ask such a question - except desperation and a realisation the we have no viable Afghan strategy. I can only put it down to a rush of blood to the head.
Of course it does not work. It entrenches corruption which further alienates the people and pushes them further into the hands of the Taliban and their Islamic Courts system.
Kazhai is repellent - yet we have left ourself with nobody else to support - the election was as corrupt as one I recall in Nicaragua when the president Anastasio Somoza said "you may have won the election but I won the count", and was helped to do so by the CIA (see Iran/Contra).
If Kazhai wins we will have dug for ourselves a similarly huge hole. Pay him off or remove him from office is our only option and talk to the Taliban - this is now our only option, and it is the only remaining option because of our own arrogance and stupidity.
Complain about this comment
Western policy has been either to ignor or kill those from whom we can reap no profit. Tribes do not a country make. We deal with all sorts of unsavory leaders in the world. The good thing is that they did not establish a banking system. Of course Muslims are not allowed to charge interest and they may shoot you if you steal from them. Some modification of that practice should be considered in the Western world.
Complain about this comment
Bribery has been a centerpiece of foreign policy since the later days of Rome. It has proven to be a temporary measure as a higher bidder may come along. In the third world, countries that can show no profit for investors, bribery tends to be cash to leaders to buy arms to oppress the people for the supply of cheap labor. As one may recall the bribed tribes of the Roman Empire border lands eventually raided and destroyed the empire, so one could conclude this is a failed strategy. In our world, bankers bribed the politicans for favorable policies with the results being a financial crisis. The barbarians are never far away, in modren times they wear suits and computers are the weapons of choice.
Complain about this comment
Before you allow for bribes, why don't you consider the following?
First of all,
The US and the UK understand Afghanistan is the nation for Afghan people, return the country Afghan people, abandon imperialistic ambitions for geopolitical interests and energy resources of Asia.
NATO, the US and other states' soldiers and mercenary soldiers return their own states.
The United Nation Security Council establishes a war criminal court against foreign soldiers, mercenary soldiers, extremists, and politicians who gave their soldiers authorization of air-raids.
And then,
NATO and the US. stop backing minority Tajiks and Uzbeks.
The West stop multinational banks from money laundering of drugs.
While developed nations buy opium from Afghan farmers for several years, help them to switch from poppy to agricultural crops.
The United Nation make Taliban promise to guarantee the security of aid organizations and to cut all their connections with trafficking in drugs.
And then,
Aid organizations make self-regulation system, and set up the appropriate administrative fee.
The United Nation oversees major aid organizations and manages information of projects and needs of local residents for purposes of streamlining various projects, making aid organizations accomplish projects, making reassessments about projects, and preventing corruption of aid organizations and Afghan public officials.
The United Nation and international community provide sufficient physical supports.
And then,
Unless these things facilitated the reconstruction of Afghanistan, you would be better off either considering to prepare bribes or letting Afghanistan keep going on.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS