A new push for development of Afghanistan comes in response at least as much to the needs of Western countries as of Afghanistan. The London conference on Afghanistan (January 31 and February 1) will draw about 60 delegations, mostly countries but also some multilateral agencies such as the World Bank. It is being co-chaired by the British government, the Afghan government and the United Nations. That co-chairing is symbolic. It means that the British move is seen to involve the Afghan government, and have international legitimacy. The co-chairing is being underlined by the presence at the conference of British PM Tony Blair, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

The reason for the British initiative is clear: to progressively reduce space within Afghanistan for terrorist groups to operate. Which means that it will never be enough for the internationally-backed Karzai government to control just Kabul. Far too many areas within Afghanistan are outside the control of government and foreign security forces.

The new push in Afghanistan seeks to cover these areas in two ways: physically and developmentally. Physically through extending the control of security forces into regions outside their control at present, and secondly, to cover the areas under physical control with development initiatives that would seek to preclude any revival of the Taliban or of Islamist extremism. Over the first phase of the Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration process, about 62,000 men from known armed militias have been disarmed. Control has been extended into several regions outside of Kabul, particularly in the north of the country.

On the development track within these areas, the statistics seem impressive at face value: an economy that grew 16 per cent in 2003, 8 per cent in 2004, 28,000 Afghans trained as policemen, the return of six million children to school, 37 per cent of them girls and with about a third of the teachers women, the return of about four million refugees, and signs of freedom in a new media. Much of this has been supported by an input of about $15 billion from the international community since 2001. Statistics of this kind can never be on the ground exactly what officials claim them to be, but there is little doubt that foreign forces have had far better luck in Afghanistan than in Iraq.

The security push by international forces, NATO troops and by the newly assembled government forces is being described now as more counter-insurgency than counter-terrorism. The claimed difference is that counter-terrorism is security activity aimed at locating and taking out terrorist groups, while counter-insurgency is creating a security environment within a region that makes normal activity possible — in the process also of eliminating terrorist threats wherever located or encountered.

Much of this is of clear interest to the West. And that has meant that the ‘compact’, the statement of the conference, has been prepared principally in London. Karzai is expected only to approve it. This ‘compact’ is expected to provide the international framework for international involvement in Afghanistan over the next five years. But uncertainty remains over both security and reconstruction teams. The US has announced a reduction of its forces in Afghanistan. — IPS