This article was produced by Peoples Dispatch/Globetrotter News Service.
As Afghanistan’s economy continues to spiral, as many as 34 million Afghans are living below the poverty line, says a new UN report. The “Afghanistan Socio-Economic Outlook 2023” report released by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on April 18 highlights the impact of cuts in international aid to Afghanistan since the Taliban took power.
The report notes that the number of people below the poverty line in Afghanistan has increased from 19 million in 2020 to 34 million today. It also adds, “Even if the UN aid appeal for international assistance to reach $4.6 billion in 2023 succeeds, it may fall short of what is needed to improve conditions for millions of Afghans.”
The UNDP report comes after the UN said that it was “reviewing its presence” in Afghanistan following the Taliban’s ban on Afghan women from working for the international organization earlier this month. The UN statement suggested that it may be planning to suspend its operations in the country.
The report also notes that Afghanistan is currently facing a severe fiscal crisis after the ending of foreign assistance “that previously accounted for almost 70 percent of the government budget.” A severe banking crisis also continues. In 2022, Afghanistan’s GDP contracted by 3.6 percent. The report adds that the average real per capita income has also declined by 28 percent from the 2020 level.
On May 1, the UN began holding crucial talks regarding Afghanistan in Doha. The participants include the five permanent UN Security Council members, countries in the region such as Pakistan, India, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, and key players such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Notably, the de facto Taliban government of Afghanistan was not invited to participate. “Any meeting about Afghanistan without the participation of the Afghan government is ineffective and counterproductive,” said Abdul Qahar Balkhi, Taliban foreign ministry spokesman.
A C-130 Hercules aircraft from the Republic of Korea Air Force sits on the flight line at Rosecrans Air National Guard Base, St. Joseph, Missouri, May 12, 2022. C-130s from the ROKAF, Little Rock Air Force Base, and Dyess AFB were attending the Advanced Airlift Tactics Training Center’s Advanced Tactics Aircrew Course / credit: Michael Crane / U.S. Air National Guard
Editor’s Note: This analysis originally appeared in People’s Dispatch.
Between August 22 and September 1, the United States and South Korea concluded their largest joint military drills in the Korean Peninsula since 2017, under the name ‘Ulchi Freedom Shield’. Over the last four years, the scope of the annual exercises had been scaled back, first because of U.S. President Donald Trump’s attempts at diplomacy with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and later because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
With these drills, however, the United States and South Korea seem to be attempting to send a clear message to both North Korea and China of their united military posture in the region, and come at a time when the U.S. encirclement of China continues rapidly.
The military relationship between the United States and South Korea, officially the Republic of Korea (ROK), has a long history, stretching back at least as far as the Korean War. The United States has maintained a force of at least tens of thousands of troops in South Korea since prior to the Korean War, and, while South Korean forces are otherwise independent, at times of war they are subordinated to the command of a U.S. general as part of the ROK/U.S. Combined Forces Command. About 28,500 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea, making it the country with the third-highest number of U.S. troops outside of the United States.
While the recent exercises have been conducted against a nameless enemy, it is not hard to see towards whom their message is aimed. The site of the exercises is only 32 kilometers from the border and De-Militarized Zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea. Live-fire tank and troop maneuvers have been practiced as the United States and the ROK engage in simulations and seek to increase interoperability of their deployments and technologies. War-gamed attempts to seize “weapons of mass destruction” and mount a defense of Seoul suggest that they are preparations for potential conflict with North Korea.
Trump’s attempts to seek a diplomatic end to the North Korean nuclear program were unsuccessful, as have been U.S. economic sanctions and blockades. These exercises must be seen as a continuing show of force towards the same chief end. As part of his campaign and even more recently, new South Korean Premier Yoon Suk-yeol has touted his willingness to engage in “decapitation strikes” against the North Korean leadership, as part of a broader turn towards support for, and from, U.S. interests in the region.
He has also more recently offered a bouquet of economic enticements for North Korea to abandon its nuclear program, an offer that was rejected out of hand by Kim Jong-un’s sister, Kim Yo-jong, who pointed out that it was merely the restatement of a similar offer that had been made and dismissed in the past. The North sees its nuclear arsenal as non-negotiable and the key to its global legitimacy, and is no doubt also aware of what has happened to other countries, such as Libya and Iran, that have agreed to put holds on their military nuclear capabilities at the behest of the United States. With U.S. bases and troops having been positioned so close to its border for almost its entire existence as a country, it is easy to understand why North Korea does not see a reduction in its military capabilities as a particularly pressing or, indeed, sensible priority.
The resumption of these joint military exercises has also been viewed with alarm by China, which, like North Korea, has repeatedly pointed to U.S. attempts to set up a NATO-like organization in Asia. As tensions in the region reached unprecedented levels recently following U.S. politician Nancy Pelosi’s provocative visit to Taiwan, it seems the U.S. military presence in the region is only likely to increase in the near future.
South Korea and the United States also recently participated in trilateral military exercises with Japan near Hawai’i, signaling what might be a new low in hostilities that trace their roots to the Japanese occupation of Korea, which only ended in 1945, when the administration of South Korea was handed over briefly to the United States. This too has been noted with concern by China, and suggests that the United States is coordinating its allies in the region as it attempts to extend its global hegemony ever-further eastward.
Trilateral talks were held between Afghanistan, China and Pakistan on June 3 / credit: Pakistan Foreign Office
The United States, which has prosecuted a war against Afghanistan since October 2001, has promised to withdraw its combat troops by September 11, 2021. This war has failed to attain any of the gains that were promised after 20 years of fighting: neither has it resulted in the actual fragmentation of terrorist groups nor has it led to the destruction of the Taliban. The great suffering and great waste of social wealth caused due to the war will finally end with the Taliban’s return to power, and with terrorist groups, which are entrenched in parts of Central Asia, seizing this prospect to make a full return to Afghanistan.
Civil War
There are two forms of war that exist in Afghanistan.
First, there is the war prosecuted by the United States—and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—against their adversaries in Afghanistan. The U.S. and NATO have allied with a range of political projects, which certainly includes the government of the President of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani. This is the war that the U.S. and NATO have indicated will now be ending.
Second, there is the ongoing civil war between the Ashraf Ghani government, backed by the West, and the forces around the Taliban. This is a war among Afghans, which has roots that go back several decades. As the first form of the war ends, the civil war will continue. The two principal forces in Afghanistan—the government of Ashraf Ghani and the Taliban—are unwilling to form a government of national unity or to create a mechanism to end the civil war.
Failure of peace talks between the various stakeholders in Afghanistan—including the United States—in Doha, Qatar, suggests the continuation of the civil war. The United States, since 2001, has not drawn up any serious political road map for a withdrawal. The U.S. will leave as it came, with the U.S. troops taking off as abruptly as they arrived.
Already, the Afghan National Army is weakened, much of the Afghan territory outside its full control. In recent months, the Taliban has been keeping its powder dry, waiting for the U.S. to withdraw before it steps up its attack against the government in Kabul. A report by the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team, which was submitted to the United Nations Security Council on June 1, suggests that Al Qaeda and the Haqqani network prepare to strike as soon as the opportunity arises. Al Qaeda is “such an ‘organic’ or essential part of the insurgency that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to separate it from its Taliban allies,” the report noted.
A Pakistani intelligence official, who is well-informed about the situation in Afghanistan, told me that the countryside will gradually slip further out of Kabul’s control, with the Taliban and its allies—including Al Qaeda and other regional terrorist groups—confident of victory by the end of the summer in 2022.
There is no appetite either in the United States or in Central Asia for the continuation of the U.S. military presence. Nothing good has come of it, and it does not promise any advantage in the future.
Regional Possibility
On June 3, 2021, Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Haneef Atmar, China’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi, and Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi held their fourth trilateral dialogue. This was the first high-level meeting held since September 2019. There was no direct reference to the withdrawal of the U.S. forces, but it set the context for the two most important outcomes of the meeting.
First, China pledged to play a “constructive role” to improve the long-fraught relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which have become more heated up because of the regional conflict between India and Pakistan. China has close ties with the governments in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) requiring peace in Central Asia for the success of the massive infrastructure and trade project, which runs from China’s Pacific coast to the Indian Ocean and to the Mediterranean Sea. China’s leverage over these countries is considerable. Even if China can create a modus vivendi between President Ghani and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan, it does not settle the deeper problems, such as the military weakness of Ghani’s government.
Second, based on these governments’ cooperation in the counterterrorism process, the foreign ministers agreed to jointly tackle terrorist outfits that operate in Afghanistan and in its neighboring countries: such as the Turkistan Islamic Party or East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), ISIS, and Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Pakistan’s government is troubled by the operations of the TTP, which operates along the borderlines of the two countries but is based in Afghanistan’s Paktika province. China, meanwhile, is very concerned about the ETIM, which operates in Afghanistan and Tajikistan and has been trying to destabilize the Chinese province of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. The ETIM has close ties with the Taliban, which—while it has held discussions with the Chinese—understands that its use of the ETIM gives it leverage against China. Whether or not these three governments will actually be able to weaken these terrorist groups, incubated by the Taliban, is unclear.
Tangled Web
It now seems impossible for the United States to formally remain in Afghanistan. There is simply no political will for the troops to remain in the country, even as the U.S. will keep paramilitary and mercenary forces in Afghanistan.
Given the heightened U.S. pressure on China, however, there is plenty of evidence that the U.S. is not unhappy with the possibility of instability that will come to the heart of Asia after the summer of 2021. In 2003, the U.S. designated the ETIM as a terrorist group, but it removed it from that list in 2020. This is clear evidence of the U.S. motives to destabilize China’s Xinjiang province.
The Pakistani intelligence official suggests that if the Taliban takes Kabul, groups such as the TTP and the ETIM will be emboldened to conduct attacks in Pakistan and China respectively. These groups, he tells me, will fight alongside the Taliban to weaken Kabul’s hold and to use the countryside to launch these attacks; there is no necessity for the Taliban to actually take control of Kabul.
The question that remains is whether or not the Taliban can be divided. The Taliban is a tangle of Afghan nationalism and patriotism as well as various forms of political Islam. There are elements in the Taliban that are far more nationalistic and patriotic than they are committed to the Islamist currents. Attempts to peel the “moderates” away from the more hardcore sections have largely failed, which has been evident since at least former U.S. President Barack Obama’s failed plea to the “moderate Taliban” in 2009.
There is simply not sufficient strength in Afghanistan’s society to resist the spread of the Taliban. Nor is there an organized capacity of Afghan citizens present yet to build a new bloc against both the failed U.S.-backed governments (from Hamid Karzai to Ghani) and the Taliban. But if Afghanistan’s neighbors cut off their support to the Taliban, and if they are able to deepen an economic project (such as the BRI), then there is the possibility for this new bloc to eventually emerge. That is why the dialogue between Afghanistan, China, and Pakistan is central. It might, in fact, be more important in the long run than the conversations with the Taliban.
The Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development joined climate campaigners in June in The Philippines’ financial district to sound the alarm on several Asian companies for their continued financing of fossil fuels amid the climate emergency / Twitter/AsianPeoplesMovement
The Asian Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) 2021, a meeting of hundreds of civil society organizations and others interested in clean energy policy, was underway on June 15 in Manila, The Philippines, when one session came to a halt.
An Asian-led network of over 250 civil society organizations from around the world called NGO Forum on ADB decided to disengage from a session it was co-hosting alongside the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The session in question was about ADB’s draft energy policy. ADB is a multilateral bank that finances development projects, specifically involving fossil fuel energy across Asia.
“The focus of the ACEF discussions were topics like energy transition and of course these are important,” said Lidy Nacpil, coordinator of the Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), a member organization of the NGO Forum on ADB. “But we believe their approach to transition is not fast enough and not ambitious enough considering what we need to prevent climate catastrophe.”
In May 2020, the ADB released a draft of its energy policy. Titled “Energy Policy: Supporting Low Carbon Transition in Asia and the Pacific,” the document is a revision of the bank’s 2009 energy policy. The draft signals a shift away from coal financing, but it allows for financing of natural gas projects. And so, given a nod for continued financing of fossil fuel projects in an era of climate change, ADB’s energy policy has been criticized. Whether the bank will actually engage with such criticism though is another question.
“ADB has opened up consultations with civil society groups, but the meetings for these consultations are very brief,” Nacpil said. “There isn’t enough space for dialogue and debate about important passages in the energy draft, like the usage of false solutions like carbon capture and storage.”
Scientists have criticized technologies like carbon capture and storage for being “expensive, energy intensive, risky and unproven.”
The reasons for disengaging from the clean-energy forum included the lack of transparency, inclusivity and meaningful consultation with civil society in the ADB energy-policy review process. For many civil society organizations from across central, southern and southeast Asia, they did not experience anything but a one-sided push aimed at informing rather than engaging with participants.
NGO Forum on ADB added the ADB Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department (SDCC) has not provided any information about the timeline for consultations or the process by which inputs provided by groups like NGO forum on ADB will be taken into account before the draft is finalized.
This reporter sent questions to Bruno Carrasco, director general and chief compliance officer of the ADB SDCC regarding the lack of transparency and a need for Engagement, but received no comment.
Grassroots Voices Left Out
“The name ‘Asian Clean Energy Forum’ is a misnomer. ACEF is neither Asian nor clean,” said Vidya Dinker, national president of the Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) and coordinator of Growthwatch, a research and advocacy group in India. INSAF is another member of NGO Forum on ADB. “It’s a networking event for ADB to reach out to people who they think will broaden their reach and business.”
In a press briefing held on June 18, Hasan Mehedi from the Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN) Bangladesh, said, “ADB is continuing to finance fossil fuels including Liquified Fossil Gas and Waste to Energy while global scientific communities warn about any further investment for fossil fuels.” But Mehedi said ADB has yet to reach out to the project-affected communities on the ground. “Without consulting the affected communities and local civil society, how can ADB finalize such an important policy which has a direct impact on local communities and on the environment?”
Nacpil noted a need to “overhaul” ADB as an institution. The reasons, she explained, includes “neoliberal paradigm and strategies,” “undemocratic governance system” and the “use of loans as leverage to reshape Asian economies, according to its private sector and market driven growth framework.”
In a statement submitted as part of the Fossil Free ADB campaign, APMDD said “financing of fossil fuel projects has largely been in the form of loans. In addition to the grave impacts and implications of its fossil fuel financing on people, communities and on the climate, we are also deeply concerned that ADB’s fossil fuel financing has also exacerbated the debt burdens of its member countries. It is only fitting that the ADB Energy Policy Review also address the loans involved in its fossil fuel financing.”
The Fossil Free ADB campaign is aimed at ensuring a “no fossil fuels” ADB energy policy. It is organized by a group of civil society organizations, researchers and activists, including NGO Forum on ADB, Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), 350.org and the Consortium for Energy, Environment and Demilitarization.
The Therma Visayas Energy Project is a 340-megawatt (MW) coal-fired power plant operating since 2019 in Cebu Province, Philippines.
APMDD called on ADB to adopt a policy and take action that will address accountability for impacts of ADB-financed coal projects and ways to ease the debt burden created by ADB lending, especially lending to harmful projects.
“In their draft energy policy, they acknowledge coal projects have been problematic and that’s why we need to shift to clean energy now,” Nacpil explained. “But they are not taking into consideration the economic impacts of the projects they have funded, the kind of financial burden these projects have brought to countries.”
Rayyan Hassan, executive director of NGO Forum on ADB, said that with ADB’s coal ban having yet to be implemented, it is logical to consider calls for decommissioning old plants and the loans associated with them. Examples of such plants include the Masinloc and Visayas thermal power plants in The Philippines, the Tata Mundra coal plant in India, and Jamshoro coal plant in Pakistan.
In response to questions about debt relief, Dr. Yongping Zhai, chief of the energy sector group at ADB said that for ADB, “offering any form of debt relief to any of its borrowing member countries will compromise its preferred creditor status, which underpins ADB’s strong credit ratings. Our strong credit rating is critical for ADB to offer low-cost funding to all borrowing member countries, in support of their development efforts.”
“Yongping Zhai is speaking as a banker, not a development banker who is concerned about member countries’ debt burdens,” Dinker said.
As of now, the draft energy policy does not specify if any debt relief will be provided in relation to fossil fuel projects. It remains to be seen if this undergoes a change as deliberations with civil society groups and activists move ahead. The draft is up for submission to ADB’s board of directors later this year.
Rishika Pardikar is a freelance journalist in Bangalore, India.
