But i think the most important point this article touched on was responsibilities of reconstruction-- an interesting point brought up in Laurie's post as well. It mentioned that the US entered Afghanistan (unlike Iraq), with the support of the international community. This begs the question of how much responsibility the international community has to the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and more pressing, the care of the thousands of internally displaced persons. Obviously, the Al-Jazeera video posted by Laurie tells of a largely underfunded and insufficient aid system for refugees. I am of the line of thought that if the Afghan government cannot or will not support these people, it is up to the international community, and especially the US to take on this role.
What have you guys heard about this? Is the international community less willing to assist the US in Afghanistan because of our actions in Iraq? How do you see this shaping up? Do you foresee improvements in the 'reconstruction' process?
The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:
"The Center is the living, national memorial to President Wilson established by Congress in 1968 and headquartered in Washington, D.C. It is a nonpartisan institution, supported by public and private funds, engaged in the study of national and world affairs. The Center establishes and maintains a lively, neutral forum for free and informed dialogue.
The mission of the Center is to commemorate the ideals and concerns of Woodrow Wilson by: providing a link between the world of ideas and the world of policy; and fostering research, study, discussion, and collaboration among a full spectrum of individuals concerned with policy and scholarship in national and world affairs."
Posts
In light of your question about the improvements of the 'reconstruction' process, I searched around for new developments in the international aid process and found this article from April 6th about NATO's backing of civilian-military cooperation, which has drawn some criticism.
ReplyDeletehttp://eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav040609.shtml
One of the most significant points of the article was from: Country Director of Save the Children UK who said "the main problem is the blurring of lines" between the civilian and military. Matt Waldman of Oxfam added that the "increasing militarization of aid" means aid is more often addressing "military objectives and not the needs of Afghans.
I think ultimately these people are being ignored, and aid is not reaching these displaced migrants in cities such as Kabul. That's all I've found so far, but it doesn't look promising.
I think it is terrible to see what is happening to these refugees. I also think that its depressing that every week we learn more about thousands of refugees in the Middle East. This is what really troubles me thinking about it, especcially in light of you asking who should take care of this refugee problem. There are refugees from all over different spots of the Mid East and it is way to hard to choose from which country to help It is also unsettling to think how many of them are directly or inderectly caused by the United States.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with the suggestion that U.S. actions abroad, most pertinent is the case in Iraq, have negatively impacted the reconstruction process in Afghanistan. Not only because of its vast unpopularity but because of its being a failure. If the U.S. continues telling its populace that improvements in Iraq are either taking place or around the corner, while blunder after blunder persist, the international community should be expected to express reservation about giving aid to the reconstruction of Afghanistan being overseen primarily by the U.S.
ReplyDelete