It’s a simple phrase with a complex meaning. To some, it is a phrase that smacks of western ethnocentrism while others view it as some form of neo-colonialist thinking. Essentially, the neo-colonialist theme implies a desire to westernize Afghanistan, but acknowledges that complete westernization is not possible because Afghans simply “aren’t ready for it.” This is the thinking that America used in its own weak attempt at the practice of colonization. In the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, many Americans sought to “educate our brown brothers” in the Philippines. No thought was given to what they wanted or to their own cultural makeup.
Sure, this happens in Afghanistan to some extent. It is seen in attempts by some to reel in the traditional dispute resolution process and it definitely occurs when the Afghan legal system is viewed through legal eyes trained in common law (Afghanistan follows civil law which is very different, but I won’t bore my readers with an explanation of that topic). But the phrase doesn’t necessarily have to have that connotation, particularly when one considers the notion of transition.
Transition is a topic that looms large here. This concept is one of transitioning from US/NATO responsibility to total Afghan responsibility. How is this going to be accomplished? How will the Afghan National Army provide security in the absence of nearly 150,000 coalition troops? How will the justice system function without international funding? Sure, the funding will not dry up completely, but do you really think the American public is going to continually pour a massive amount of money into a country that no longer has American troops? The party is going to end soon and while the more corrupt Afghan politicians see the writing on the wall (hence the bags of money leaving Kabul International Airport for banks in Dubai and Abu Dhabi), some members of the international coalition fail to see this. Hence the other meaning of “Afghan good enough.”
In the proper context, Afghan good enough simply speaks to sustainability. The first question that must be asked when contemplating any project in this country is not how much or can we do it? We must ask: Is it sustainable? Sustainability means that Afghans can use the project for the purpose for which it was intended even in the absence of international funding or presence. If it can, then it’s Afghan good enough. Make sense?
Let’s explore this a bit. Imagine that we want to set up a provincial justice center in a medium size Afghan city (and we do). What might that justice center need? Perhaps the first thing that comes to mind is infrastructure. We need a courthouse, right? But what type of building should we build? Whatever you decide, will the Afghan government be able to finance its upkeep? How many lights are in the building; what’s the annual cost of that? Can the local electric grid, if it exists, maintain the power requirements? Who will pay for that?
After infrastructure, we might think of employees: judges, clerks, lawyers, security personnel, etc. How many do you need? Who will pay their salaries? If they are serving in a high threat area, will there be incentive pay to keep them on the job like there is now? Does local population support for the formal justice system match your manpower requirements? In other words, if local support is weak, you may have too many employees. Will you generate political unrest by laying them off after the coalition leaves?
Next, you may think about equipment for the court and offices. Computers, printers, copy machines and the like come to mind. Again, will the local electric grid, if it exists, support the use of such equipment? Is there internet capability? Who will pay for electricity and internet? What about paying for repairs to equipment or supplies such as ink cartridges and paper? Another question that comes to mind is even whether the local population is trained to use such equipment. There are places right now where computer equipment sits collecting dust because of the lack of electricity or training to use it (if it hasn’t been sold on the black market).
Any notions of installing a western-style justice system are delusional at this point. This country has been at war for more than 30 years. During those 30 years the only justice system was dysfunctional at best, but mostly non-existent. Without a formal justice system in most of the country, save Kabul in which the constant change of governments generated distrust of formal justice even if it did function in some form, most Afghans relied on jirgas, a meeting of village elders that decided legal questions of all types. Although this traditional legal system still exists throughout Afghanistan, it is not reliable in the sense of compliance with Afghan Constitutional or International law because there are no effective checks. It is highly susceptible to Taliban influence. However, even this form of justice is not available in such parts of the country because the elders have either been killed or run off by the Talibs or other radical insurgent organizations. It should be noted though that recent polls demonstrate that a majority of Afghans place more trust in the traditional system than they do in the formal system. This speaks volumes and must be accounted for in justice sector planning.
While a formal legal system, of some sort, must certainly be part of the Afghan governmental system, we must ask what we can accomplish. Given unlimited time and money, we most certainly could put this justice system on par with any in the world. However, we have neither unlimited time nor money. President Obama has assigned a deadline for our effort here. The US military (the organization here that has the most money) will begin withdrawal this summer and, essentially, be gone by 2014. The recent death of Osama bin Laden and American war fatigue most certainly guarantees this, if not a faster, timeline.
There is no clear-cut solution or even end-state here. There will be no concerted “Marshall Plan” like the one that created the economic successes in Germany and Japan. There will be no “victory” however defined. There will only be “Afghan good enough.” We just have to determine what that is.
No comments:
Post a Comment