05 November 2009
Speech by Douglas Alexander, Secretary of State for International Development, delivered at the City Forum's Symposium on Stabilisation, London
Thank you Paddy (Ashdown) for that introduction, and for inviting me to address this auspicious if somewhat intimidating audience. I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate regarding some of the most important questions in global politics today.
For in a world, as we’ve just heard, where the security of the world’s most powerful country can be imperilled by the absence of law and order in the world’s most fragile and impoverished states, the issues of stabilisation and reconstruction are fundamental to securing our common future.
That is why the Department I have the privilege to lead, the Department for International Development, has increased the proportion of our assistance to fragile states and countries affected by conflict from a quarter of our bilateral programme, to half of it today.
It would have been straightforward for me, in my remarks today to outline my Department’s increasing focus on working in conflict-affected and fragile states – as set out in July in our new White Paper.
Yet it is perhaps more relevant to our discussions here, and more urgent, for me to address current events in Afghanistan, and the important choices that the UK Government believes should be made in the weeks and months ahead.
And of course let me begin my remarks by paying tribute to the five British soldiers killed at the checkpoint in Nad-e-Ali in Helmand on Tuesday. My thoughts go out to their families, friends and colleagues as they begin to come to terms with their loss. That terrible incident showed the dangers that our troops and the Afghan people continue to face. And in response to those dangers we must ensure that we have the right strategy for Afghanistan, supported across the international partnership and by the new Afghan government.
The decision by the Independent Electoral Commission on Monday to award the presidential election to Hamid Karzai after Dr Abdullah’s withdrawal, brought an to end months of political campaigning and opens a new chapter in Afghanistan’s history. As we look ahead to the choices that a new government must make, it is clear that the challenges facing the country today are to say considerable.
A survey of the Afghan people published by the Asia Foundation last week showed that, while more respondents than last year consider that the country is moving in the right direction, more than a third of people polled identified security as the biggest problem facing the country.
Yet almost as many people highlighted unemployment as the biggest problem facing the country, with corruption and poverty also marked out as issues that need to be urgently addressed.
So the challenge for Afghanistan’s new Government, supported by the international community, is really two-fold – firstly to build a more accountable and effective state able to deliver the legitimacy, services and economic opportunities that people demand, and secondly to provide security by tackling the insurgency that continues to pose such a mortal threat to the interests of the people.
These are categorically not separate objectives but part of a whole. Our own military commanders, alongside General McChrystal in his recent recommendations, argue that the insurgency cannot be tackled through military effort alone. Indeed it is only through military effort combined with a legitimate political process and progress on delivering jobs and services that we will see support for the Government of Afghanistan rise and support for the insurgency fall.
Some observers have either mistakenly or wilfully misconstrued this comprehensive approach, declaring that we have sent British troops to Afghanistan to uphold the right of girls to go to school, or indeed the right to vote.
However worthwhile those aims are, and they are worthwhile aims, let me be clear - British troops are in Afghanistan because of reasons of national security. Their endeavours in Afghanistan as part of the ISAF mission have helped to drive Al Qaeda from Afghanistan. The presence of international forces remains necessary today to prevent the Taleban returning to power – which would undoubtedly also see the return of Al Qaeda’s ability to act with impunity in the country.
Yet to prevent that return to power, we must both continue the fight against the insurgency and support Afghans to build a stronger and more credible state. To that end, I want to suggest today four priorities for action for the Government of Afghanistan and the international community:
First, to maintain the military pressure on those who remain opposed to peaceful political process – and for Afghans to increasingly take responsibility for that military effort, and for providing security for the Afghan people.
Second, a genuine political settlement which includes those parts of the insurgency willing to renounce the use of force and uphold the Afghan constitution. The agreement reached in Bonn back in 2001 was a start but never a conclusion to Afghanistan’s political process. Reconciliation and reintegration are central to lasting success.
Third, for the Government of Afghanistan to make a clear commitment, backed up by action, to tackle the corruption which erodes public confidence in the state and fuels the discontent on which the insurgency feeds.
Fourth, for the international community – in response to increased efforts by the Afghan Government to tackle corruption – to provide greater support to help the Government deliver, both nationally and critically, locally, the services that the people of Afghanistan want and need.
Let me take each of those priorities in turn, starting with the continued importance of the shared military effort.
I of course pay tribute to the professionalism, the heoism and dedication of our armed forces – not least in their efforts over the summer as part of the international Operation Panther’s Claw, which brought security to approximately 80,000 people and allowed reconstruction and development teams to move into the Babaji area of Helmand.
But at the same time as our troops help to provide security to the Afghan people, we are building up the Afghan Army and Police so they can take on this job themselves. As the Prime Minister told the House of Commons yesterday, this is the work that the insurgency fears most – and we will not turn away from it.
The international community has together trained over 94,000 Afghan troops, and 92,000 Afghan police. Afghan forces are now running security in Kabul, and over time they will take the lead in other districts of the country.
Training national forces to take the lead in delivering security is, as General McChrystal has made clear, a cornerstone of any effective counter insurgency – and brings closer the day that our own troops can come home.
It is only through sustained military pressure that the space can be created for the political process and development progress that are also required. For as General Petraeus noted in his observations on his time in Iraq: “success in counterinsurgency requires more than just military operations” and indeed “ultimate success depends on local leaders”.
It is therefore critical that the incoming Afghan administration takes this opportunity to now commit to a political strategy of reconciliation and reintegration. For while the insurgency is often broadly labelled as ‘the Taleban’, the reality is that there is a spectrum of insurgent groups – from political and religious extremists to those Afghans who have joined the insurgency for a daily wage.
As my colleague the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband set out in his July speech at the NATO headquarters in Brussels, we will support efforts to establish an inclusive political settlement for those who reject violence and accept the Afghan constitution. That process needs to be led by the Afghans themselves, yet we can provide support to whatever process they choose to adopt – be it a Loya Jirga or some other mechanism.
Beyond this high-level reconciliation however, there should also be a process for reintegrating some of the rank and file of the insurgency. Because, as the US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has previously made clear, defeating the insurgency will require not only confronting the extremists of Al Qaeda and the Taleban, but also separating them “from those who joined their ranks not out of conviction but out of desperation”.
That will mean assuring local populations that the Afghan and international forces can provide security from reprisals if they switch their allegiance from the insurgency to the Government.
It will mean providing a clear route for former insurgents to find alternatives to earning a wage through the insurgency.
And it will mean gaining the confidence of the people of Afghanistan that the Government will provide the services they want and need – rather than see a public role as a route to corruption and graft.
For if an inclusive political process, allied with continued military action to tackle the insurgency, is vital to establish a functioning state, then the legitimacy of that state is undermined by the extent of corruption that exists in Afghanistan today.
The extent of corruption in Afghanistan today is not only damaging the ability of the state to deliver, but also eroding both the trust of the Afghan people and the confidence of Afghanistan’s international partners. Afghanistan now ranks 176th out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index.
Public perceptions of grand corruption fuel a belief amongst ordinary people of a venal and self serving public administration which provides the Taleban with ready made propaganda. But corruption also affects Afghans more directly. The average Afghan wage is just over $300 a year. Yet in some provinces, households pay an average of $100 a year in bribes to public officials.
That is why the third priority for President Karzai’s new administration should be show a real commitment to crack down on corruption, not only in words – as we heard from the President in his public address on Tuesday - but also in deeds.
Specifically, the Government should pass a new law that establishes an independent anti-corruption commission with powers of investigation and prosecution; creates a Major Crimes Court to hear serious corruption cases; and establishes an independent Audit Office which reports to the National Assembly and makes audit reports public.
We have already made clear to President Karzai our expectation that he appoints competent and clean Ministers and Provincial Governors. We have seen what is possible when effective and committed Ministers and governors are given the opportunity to serve even in the challenging circumstances I have described.
Earlier this year I met the Afghan Finance Minister Dr Omar Zakhilwal, who told me of his efforts to tackle corruption among customs officials. Indeed just a few days ago two customs brokers alleged to be part of an organised gang operating at Kabul airport were arrested, and stand accused of defrauding the government of customs revenues approaching $30 million a year. That prosecution must now run its course.
A consistent theme of representations to President Karzai – not just from the Government of the United Kingdom but from a number of international partners – is that he must now show resolve in both appointing effective, competent politicians to both national and provincial positions, and in tackling graft – through prosecutions where necessary – in order to gain the confidence of the international community and indeed the people of Afghanistan.
In return for clear signals that the Government of Afghan is serious about tackling corruption, the international community should provide coordinated civil support to help Afghanistan today to take charge of its own destiny more quickly.
We should not forget that amidst the considerable challenges facing Afghanistan, there have been some areas of real progress since the fall of the Taleban. Back in 2001 only a million children were in school, all of them boys. By next year, we expect there will be 7 million children in school – a third of them girls. Eight out of ten Afghans now have access to health facilities.
Notwithstanding these improvements, much more needs to be done. Because as Ashraf Ghani has previously identified, it is not merely the strength of the Taleban that is the issue – but the weakness of the government. So – pending real action by the Government of Afghanistan to tackle corruption in the weeks and months ahead – the international community must do more to support the establishment of an effective, enduring Afghan state.
I believe that means doing three things:
Let me take each of those in turn. Donors must first keep their word on the investment that they pledge to the Government and the people of Afghanistan. The UK is comfortably the second largest donor to Afghanistan. Perhaps more importantly still, we have actually disbursed 100 per cent of the commitments we have made in each of the last 3 years.
Yet others across the international community have not met their pledges – with as much as a quarter of total commitments as yet undelivered. How can the Government effectively plan to build schools and hospitals, or indeed train teachers and doctors, if it cannot rely on the investment necessary at this stage to maintain buildings or pay salaries?
Secondly, donors should work more through the Afghan government, rather than around it. Of course, corruption creates a natural desire among some donors to avoid delivering through the Government and instead simply to deliver themselves – indeed that’s what happens with 80 per cent of all aid to Afghanistan today.
But evidence from a number of countries around the world shows that working outside Government systems can be both more expensive and less effective. And in addition to these questions of value for money, it is only by working through the Government that Afghans will build the ability to deliver in the long term, and it is only by working through the Government that we can help to build the accountability that is necessary between elected officials and their constituents.
So while corruption of course is a problem we take very seriously, it does not mean that aid cannot effectively and accountably be spent through government systems. Most of the UK’s development assistance provided to the Government goes through the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, which is managed by the World Bank and monitored by independent recognised accountants. Rather than provide the aid money up front, that Fund reimburses the Afghan Government when it shows legitimate spend on reconstruction projects – and as a result, has delivered real benefits for the Afghan people.
Let me be clear – the assistance we provide through the Government of Afghanistan is categorically not unconditional. Indeed we have, along with international partners, made clear to President Karzai the need to demonstrate tangible progress on tackling corruption in the months and years ahead.
Thirdly, the international community should commit to a single plan to enable Afghans to take charge of their own destiny more quickly a point that on a number of occasions Paddy has made in print. That means helping to train national and local officials and provide support to institutions that are being established after decades of conflict.
Take Helmand, where unlike other parts of Afghanistan, significant donor support is being provided. The United Kingdom alone is spending over £80 million in Helmand this year on governance, stabilisation and development work, as part of the international community’s efforts totalling some £200 million.
Indeed Helmand is one of the most aided places in the world. While it is difficult to estimate the population of the province – given the last census taken there was in 1979 – we share the Government of Afghanistan’s estimate that Helmand is home to around a million people.
That means Helmand will receive some £200 in aid per person this year. That is around double the Afghan national average of some £100 of aid per person, and is indeed far greater than the aid provided to many other countries.
Of course, Helmand is an incredibly tough environment in which to deliver that spend effectively. There is a lack of security, a lack of government capacity, and a lack of institutions due to generations of conflict. But our investment in supporting the local Government in Helmand, under the leadership of Governor Mangal, is delivering real results on the ground – providing more than 5,000 families with access to clean water, opening schools and improving health services across the province.
Just as importantly, our investment is also helping to build the long-term capacity of the local government through recruiting and training staff, and building institutions from the ground up. That doesn't necessarily mean those institutions will be comparable to anything we would recognise as local government here in the UK, but our goal is to build institutions that can withstand pressure from the insurgency, can be accountable to local people, and can get things done.
As I said at the outset of this speech, the decisions taken in Afghanistan over the coming days and weeks will be critical to gaining the support of both the Afghan people and the country’s international partners.
For while the beginning of this week was dominated by headlines regarding the political process in Afghanistan, the incident at Nad-e-Ali has naturally – just a few days before Remembrance Sunday - turned our thoughts to those British troops who are facing such dangers in Afghanistan.
This Saturday will see Black Watch return for their homecoming in Edinburgh, after a six month tour. I last met serving members of the Black Watch in Musa Qala on the day that operation Panther’s Claw concluded. Also that day, the Foreign Secretary had given the speech at the NATO headquarters as I mentioned where he argued the importance of reconciliation and reintegration efforts in tackling the insurgency.
So I asked the soldiers to be honest with me – did they see the idea of engaging in dialogue with elements of the insurgency as somehow a betrayal of their efforts, or indeed of the memory of their fallen colleagues? The response was immediate and emphatic – ‘we can’t fight forever’.
That assertion underpins the approach that I have set out today – that sustained and necessary military pressure must be matched by action to advance an inclusive political settlement and build the Afghan state.
These objectives are best pursued by working through Afghan systems, not around them, and as part of an international effort that works towards a single plan. Delivering on these objectives will certainly not be easy, as this year, and indeed the tragic events of this week have shown. Yet these are I believe the central challenges facing Afghanistan on the eve of 2010.
Bookmark with:
What are Bookmarks?
