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.
Thousands of Afghans crowded on August 16 at the Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul to exit Afghanistan after the Taliban entered the capital / credit: AFP/Wakil Kohsar
Editor’s Note: The following is the writer’s opinion.
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni will provide room and board to about 2,000 Afghan refugees, at the request of the United States, until they can be transferred to Western countries in months or years to come. Airplanes carrying Afghan evacuees have already landed in Uganda.
This is a diplomatic triumph for a “useful” tyrant, who has repeatedly acted as a CIA enforcer in the sensitive regions of Central Africa and the Horn of Africa.
Uganda on the African continent / credit: Wikimedia
First, the open arms of the people of Uganda must be praised, especially now at a time of global racist pushback against asylum seekers and refugees. Uganda, a country with just $827 per capita income, is home to 2.2 million refugees fleeing grisly violence in Congo, Somalia and the rest of the African continent.
How ever generous, the good hearts of Uganda’s people have been used by Museveni as a bargaining chip to curry favor with the United States and thus solidify his calamitous rule.
Museveni has governed Uganda for 35 years. In the process, he has whipped skulls of challengers, forcibly pulled dissidents from airplane seats, and won a bloody election in January in circumstances that can be described as a stain on democracy.
Despite Museveni’s track record, the CIA counts him as a crucial bulwark against the radical Islamist menace in the Horn of Africa and East Africa region. The so-called “War on Terror” keeps Uganda wealthy with U.S. cash and makes Museveni so untouchable that his soldiers serving in Somalia drive around in bomb-resistant vehicles that once couriered U.S. troops around Afghanistan. Museveni is the United States’ dependable ally in East Africa, not thinking twice before he deploys Ugandan troops on behalf of U.S. operations to control the outcomes of regional wars in Somalia, Burundi or Congo.
As Yasin Kakande, fierce Museveni critic and author of Why We Are Coming, tells me: “Museveni plays a role akin to the head of a brokerage firm for rebels, rebellions and peace missions on behalf of America.”
The Afghan refugee emergency saw a bungling Biden scrambling for venues to temporarily place evacuated refugees ahead of a so-called “red-line ultimatum” given by an increasingly confident Taliban regime in Kabul. Qatar, a transit country, says it is now saturated with refugees and can take no more. Iran and Turkey were reportedly restricting the entry of Afghan refugees into their territory. However, Museveni has spotted a gap to play a benevolent friend to a desperate United States.
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni addresses the general debate of the 69th session of the United Nations General Assembly in 2014 / credit: Cia Pak, United Nations
Museveni is clever. He knows after an election victory marred by widespread killings and torture of opponents, the United States was taking a hard line, imposing visa sanctions on Uganda government officials accused of undermining democracy in the East African nation. Civil society and global human-rights partners were calling on the United States to slap Museveni’s regime harder.
Running low on options, he had to wiggle his way out. A chance presented itself in Afghanistan and Museveni jumped to aid Biden in Afghanistan. By pretending to be generous to the Biden administration, Museveni is maneuvering back into the favor of Washington. Uganda government trolls are already having a field day, making sexist remarks about Afghan female refugees.
“President Museveni has opened borders to Afghan refugees,” charges outspoken Ugandan journalist Yasin Kakande, who has not lived in his homeland for years. “The CIA claps hands and tells Washington that Museveni is a model dictator who fights America’s failed wars. The same story like in Somalia.”
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni (right) is greeted by U.S. Department of Defense Chuck Hagel in 2013 / credit: Glenn Fawcett via DOD
The nature of global politics has evolved significantly in the 21st century. The United States is no longer the uncontested world power, able to dominate every domain in every region of the world. Cooperation with dictatorial governments like Museveni’s in Uganda that do not hesitate to sign off on deals without consulting with their citizens is the sweetest dream of the contesting powers of the world. The United States is threatened by the closing gap between herself and her immediate competitor, China. The rivalry between the two is working to the advantage of power-hungry oligarchs in far-off places like Uganda, who survive by serving the interests of these powerful nations. The desperation of Afghan refugees is bringing the murderous political elites of Uganda and the U.S. government closer to deals. For Museveni, leveraging his legitimacy on cooperating with the United States significantly works to his political advantage, while the self-serving convenience of turning a brutal government into a useful ally is, to the United States, high priority. Access to loans from international funders, as well as to donor funds and ammunition, all work to build an elitist political empire that thrives by riding roughshod over the stricken of the region and Uganda whilst handsomely serving U.S. imperial goals.
The geopolitical relevance of autocratic strongmen in the African Great Lakes region puts the likes of Museveni in Uganda in a special class of despots the U.S. government cannot afford to stop working with. After the massive but disorganized and humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan, the U.S. government seems not to care much about who it wines and dines with as long as it puts a cover on the negative implications of its rushed Afghan pullout.
There is nothing wrong with Ugandan people’s remarkable generosity in hosting batches of Afghan refugees. But Museveni opportunistically casting himself as a global refugee-rights icon must not cloud the United States’ duty to call out his repressive rule in Uganda.
The United States seemingly has two choices: Alienate an autocrat like Museveni by rebuking him or overlook his undemocratic excesses and retain Museveni’s help in the so-called “War on Terror.”
The United States has chosen the latter.
Ray Mwareya won the 2016 UN Correspondents Association Media Prize. His work appears in Newsweek, The Guardian and Reuters. He can be followed on Twitter at @rmwareya.
The Saudi-led international coalition intervened in the Yemen conflict in 2015. It has also imposed a land and sea blockade. According to UNICEF, around 11 million Yemeni children are directly affected by the war and around 2.2 million are extremely malnourished / credit: Press TV
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in Peoples Dispatch.
More than 11,000 Yemeni children have been killed or injured since the escalation of fighting in Yemen in 2015, the United Nations International Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reported on Sunday, December 11. The Saudi-led international coalition intervened in the conflict in Yemen in 2015.
Commenting on the number of children killed or maimed in the Yemen war, Catherine Russell, executive director of the UNICEF, noted that this was at best a conservative figure and that “the truce toll of this conflict is likely to be far higher.”
Russell was on a visit to the country where the Saudi-led international coalition, backed by the United States and its European allies such as the United Kingdom and France, is waging a war against the Houthi forces who control capital Sanaa since March 2015. The war has killed hundreds of thousands of people and devastated what was already the poorest country in the Arab world.
Saudi Arabia accuses the Houthis of being an Iranian proxy, responsible for displacing Yemen’s rightful government in 2014-15. The Houthis have denied the Saudi allegations and claimed that they are fighting against the corrupt ruling classes of their country, who do not serve the people but act as facilitators of international loot of Yemeni resources.
Russell called for the immediate resumption of the UN-mediated ceasefire which had ended in October this year. In April this year, for the first time in seven years of war, both the warring sides had agreed to a two-month ceasefire. The ceasefire was extended twice, and the country experienced a rare six months of relative peace. However, both parties refused to extend the ceasefire beyond October after the UN failed to devise substantial grounds for its indefinite extension.
Millions on the Verge of Death
Russell noted that in the period since the ceasefire ended, 62 Yemeni children have been killed and “hundreds of thousands more remain at risk of death from preventable diseases or starvation.”
According to the UNICEF, around 11 million Yemeni children are directly affected by the war and around 2.2 million of them are extremely malnourished. A quarter of these 2.2 million children are below the age of five and extremely susceptible to deadly diseases such as cholera and measles, among others.
UNICEF also noted that regular immunization in the country has been badly affected due to the war, with over 28 percent children missing their routine vaccinations.
The Saudi-led coalition, apart from waging its ground and air offensive in populated areas, has also imposed a crippling air, sea and land blockade of the country since 2015, preventing the supply of essentials including food, fuel, and medicine. The blockade has been identified as the main reason for the large-scale starvation in Yemen, which has pushed millions to the verge of death due to hunger and lack of medicines and healthcare equipment.
Underlining the causes of their refusal to extend the UN-mediated ceasefire, the Houthis highlighted the failure to address the central issue of the Saudi blockade which would have “alleviated the suffering of Yemeni people.” Throughout the period of the ceasefire, the Houthis had been raising the issue of insufficient easing of the blockade and had accused the Saudi-backed forces of violating the norms of the truce.
The scale of destruction caused by the war and the blockade has forced the UN to categorize Yemen as “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.”
In a hugely consequential advisory, the U.S. Treasury Department quietly signaled on February 2 that it was “tweaking” sanctions against Afghanistan’s Haqqani Network, a Sunni Islamist militant organization. International banks can now transfer money to the Taliban, including its affiliated Haqqani Network, without fear of breaching sanctions.
Washington simply issued clarifications dilating on the relaxation of sanctions announced in September and December for humanitarian work in Afghanistan. The banks can now process transactions related to humanitarian operations “including clearing, settlement, and transfers through, to, or otherwise involving privately owned and state-owned Afghan depository institutions.” (Author’s emphasis.)
Significantly, the Treasury Department specifically mentioned that the relaxed regime will include the Haqqani Network as well. This means that U.S. sanctions will no longer come in the way of foreign agencies signing agreements to provide aid, general aid coordination, including import administration, and sharing of office space with the Taliban or Haqqani Network.
Logically, the next step will be to ensure that the United States would have a say in the Afghan economic policies under the Taliban. The downstream implications for the Taliban government’s fiscal management or decision-making vis-à-vis non-Western partners in development—for example, China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the TAPI (Turkmenistan/Afghanistan/Pakistan/India) gas pipeline project and others—are at once obvious.
A convincing case is being made in this direction already by the U.S. government-funded think tank, the U.S. Institute of Peace, based in Washington.
A USIP analysis says:
“Although economic and humanitarian conditions in Afghanistan continue to deteriorate, the Taliban have taken some positive steps toward financial stability by publishing a fiscally responsible three-month and raising considerable amounts of domestic revenue – especially through customs duties, which have risen with a crackdown on corruption.
The international community urgently needs to get a better idea of how much the Taliban government is collecting and where budget resources are being spent, so as to ensure that the limited aid funds for delivering essential services are well spent…
U.S. government, other donors and especially the World Bank (which could be authorized to take the lead on this) urgently need to analyze data on Afghan government revenues and expenditures and assess the implications for effective deployment of aid, especially when it comes to assistance for public service delivery as opposed to purely humanitarian aid.”
Great Sense of Urgency
There is a great sense of urgency here that the discussions between the Taliban and U.S. representatives at the recent Oslo talks (January 23-25) be followed up speedily in the broad direction of engaging the government in Kabul. (See my article, “West finding ways to work with the Taliban,” Asia Times, January 28.)
Significantly, the Oslo deliberations were brusquely taken forward to the United Nations Security Council on January 26, where UN officials at Washington’s behest forcefully argued for the imperative of “engaging with the de facto authorities” in Kabul.
The UN officials are on record that their “premise is based on a presumed consensus that it is in no one’s interest to see a collapse of the current state in Afghanistan, but also that engagement with the Taliban can lead to progress along a negotiated pathway that delivers for the people of Afghanistan, the region and the rest of the world.”
And, therefore, “testing that hypothesis will be our task in the months ahead.”
India’s permanent representative to the UN, Ambassador T.S. Tirumurti, who briefed the Security Council in his capacity as chairman of the committee created pursuant to Resolution 1988 tasked with overseeing sanctions related to the Taliban (against Sirajuddin Haqqani, etc.), reportedly “explained that the goal is to facilitate conditions that promote dialogue and ultimately result in peace and stability.”
Tirumurti cautioned that the UN monitoring team has noted that the ties between the Taliban – largely through the Haqqani Network – and al-Qaeda and foreign terrorist fighters remain close and are based on ideological alignment.
Furthermore, the presence of Islamic State (ISIS) in Afghanistan remains a matter of concern, as terrorist attacks continue to be used to demonstrate power and influence.
Plainly put, the journey has begun to lift the sanctions against the Taliban leaders, including the Haqqanis. The UN officials dealing with Afghanistan are plowing the U.S. line to speed up the process.
Meanwhile, on February 2, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Dissatisfaction in High Places
It was a classified briefing. In a statement later, Republican Senator Jim Inhofe, ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, voiced dissatisfaction:
“We still face a lot of real challenges in Afghanistan even though our troop presence is gone … I would have liked to hear more details regarding the interagency planning process, nature of the terrorist threat in Afghanistan today, and their counterterrorism plans going forward.
We need to learn from our mistakes if we want to deter [US President Vladimir] Putin’s aggression in Europe or appropriately respond to Chinese economic and military aggression.”
Evidently, the geopolitics of Afghanistan is very much on everyone’s mind in the U.S. establishment. Unsurprisingly, Russia has voiced disquiet over the unseemly hurry in Washington to hustle the world community.
In a wide-ranging interview with Tass news agency this week, Russia’s presidential envoy on Afghanistan, Ambassador Zamir Kabulov, took the bull by the horns by cautioning that while there is an urgency to render humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan—for which the unblocking of frozen funds by Washington will make a critical difference—that should not be used as a diplomatic tool.
Kabulov recalled the conditions for recognition of the Taliban government. He also warned against the probability of resistance to Taliban rule among Afghans, while also offering Russian mediation for reconciliation (see here, here and here).
Kabulov’s remarks hint at disquiet in Moscow that Washington is manipulating the Taliban faction leaders by dangling in front of them the carrot of the lifting of sanctions.
However, Washington is unlikely to pay heed. The Taliban’s alienation with Pakistan has opened a window of opportunity, which must be seized. The U.S. has already spent more than a billion dollars to split the Taliban.
The Treasury Department advisory is a hurried step, which in effect erodes the UN sanctions regime against the Haqqani Network. Only the lawmakers in the U.S. Congress have been taken into confidence.
War Profiteers
The stakes are high. Reports have appeared that Erik Prince, the Pentagon’s infamous war contractor, recently visited Dushanbe, Tajikistan. The recent unrest in Kazakhstan highlighted Afghanistan’s potential to be the staging ground for outside powers to destabilize Central Asian states that border China, Russia and Iran.
Although the Taliban have denied involvement, Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has been explicit in his remarks that foreign militants, mostly from Central Asian countries, including Afghanistan and also from the Middle East, participated in the unrest in Kazakhstan. Russia has endorsed Tokayev’s allegation (see here and here).
Interestingly, it was announced on February 2 that Kabul and Doha will be connected by direct flights. The U.S. personnel handling Afghan affairs, who are based in Qatar, can now travel frequently with ease to Kabul.
On January 31, U.S. President Joe Biden also announced his decision to nominate Qatar as a “major non-NATO ally”—a singular honor that Washington once bestowed on Pakistan as a frontline state.
“It does open up a full new range of opportunities: exercises, operations and you know, perhaps, the … acquisition of capabilities as well,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told reporters, commenting on Biden’s decision.
Taken together, the regional states will be worried that the United States’ nascent engagement with the Taliban behind the fig leaf of humanitarian aid, which gathered momentum at the Oslo talks, enables the return of U.S. intelligence personnel to Afghanistan on the pretext of “counter-terrorism” operations.
M.K. Bhadrakumar is a former Indian diplomat.Follow M.K. Bhadrakumar on Twitter: @BhadraPunchline
