KABUL (PAN): The trust that most Afghans showed in international intervention and the optimism they had about their future after the fall of the Taliban regime are on the wane, says an independent research organisation based in Kabul.

Many of the problems facing the global fraternity in Afghanistan stemmed from its hastily-made decisions and short-term planning, driven by political expediency, the group argued ahead of this week's London conference.

The Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU) believed London and Kabul conferences on Afghanistan provided an important opportunity to nurture insights and redress some of the problems created by earlier political short-sightedness.

"A lasting and just peace in Afghanistan, the kind of peace that is a natural repellent to insurgency, can only come when international intervention is informed and driven by the social, economic and political realities that Afghans face.

"Decisions that are blind to these realities, and driven by the short-term political convenience of international leaders, are likely to fail both in their stated objectives of development and in providing a foundation to counter terrorist threats."

The AREU urged the world to pay attention to four strategic issues in shaping its engagement in Afghanistan:

1. Increase recognition of ground realities: International intervention has often assumed Afghanistan to be a 'blank slate.' International engagement in Afghanistan has shown an initial, and at times willful, blindness to many of the existing informal or semi-formal mechanisms and practices that have carried Afghan society through the last few decades of upheaval and civil war.

These include, for example, public administrative systems that have endured through various regimes and informal credit systems. Yet in each of these areas, policymakers have come to appreciate and respond to these existing systems, and have begun to use these understandings to support what is already working in Afghanistan.

2. Base policy on evidence rather than ideology: Policy has often been driven by ideology or assumption rather than evidence. This is true of counter-narcotics policies that failed to recognise the importance of opium poppy to rural livelihood security and which inadvertently increased support for the Taliban by those who had no other means of livelihood in the face of poppy bans.

It is also true of economic policies that prioritised privatisation of national assets above more pressing structural reforms that were more likely to stimulate economic growth. Yet again, international policymakers, along with Afghan government officials, have learnt that these policies are not working and have begun to adjust them accordingly. This is great progress.

3. Be cautious about concepts and assumptions: The international community has often transported terms such as 'democracy,' 'gender equity' and 'merit-based practices' into Afghanistan without giving enough consideration to what these notions may mean in the Afghan context, and how they sit with Afghan values and culture.

The recent elections and increased international emphasis on fighting 'corruption' provide important opportunities to revisit these concepts and ask crucial questions about what they mean to Afghans, and how Afghans want to enact them.

AREU said its recent research on Afghan perceptions of democracy found that Afghans supported the idea of democratic government but did not appreciate some of the Western values with which democracy is often associated. They wanted an Afghan democracy within the framework of Islam.

4. Take longer-term view: The donor community often presses for fast and visible improvements in areas of governance, development and security in Afghanistan. Such pressure has led to unrealistic national-level goals, without adequate means of implementing them. This has also led to a sidelining of sustained capacity-building efforts in favour of bringing in well-paid technical advisors who are temporarily embedded in ministries.

Creating unreachable expectations and channelling funds through institutions that cannot competently dispense them tend to weaken rather than strengthen Afghan civil services. The drafting of subsequent national policies has seen greater Afghan involvement, but this area remains a weak point for international engagement.

If the international community is to ensure that its aid effectively contributes to a stable and governable state, AREU suggests, it must take a supportive role so that Afghans can choose their own destiny. A heavily directive role is a path to dependence and resentment on the part of Afghans.

If the international community listens as much as it speaks, and if it responds genuinely to Afghan needs and priorities, then the shoots of hope, already present, can grow. This does not mean that the international community should stand by in the face of impunity and malpractices.

Afghan trust in the international community has been undermined when world leaders have supported the installation of discredited Afghan leaders because it has been convenient for them to do so.

Afghan experiences with widespread malpractice in the contracting of reconstruction and development projects, often overseen by international agencies, have also contributed to scepticism about international integrity and intentions.

Many nations have committed troops to Afghanistan in the hope of seeing an improvement in its domestic security, and thus reducing international terrorist threats. However, the international military presence cannot address the root causes of insecurity in Afghanistan. An international preoccupation with military strategy has deflected attention from building up civilian institutions and developing the economy.

The outcomes of international engagement, whether military or civilian, are subject to the political dynamics that tie together the social and economic fabric of the country. Civilian development can contribute to stability only if it is defined and legitimised from the perspective of the Afghan people; otherwise it is merely a foreign imposition that will lead to growing polarisation and conflict.

The London and Kabul conferences provide an opportunity for the international community to collectively reaffirm their commitment to moving forward with what works, to listening and learning from Afghans, and to supporting Afghans in building up public institutions that are legitimate in their own eyes.

mud