Kandahar Province: catch all thread

[marct]

We've talked a lot about US problems integrating civil-military operations but, I have to admit, Canada has done a lot worse by relying on CIDA. In the 1990's, CIDA got rid of must of their field project people and became, pretty much, a contract oversight office (I did some project work with them in 2003).

[Stan]

That CIDA's reputation in Sub-Sahara was actually quite good in the late 80s and early 90s. Their work mirrored USAID's supporting agricultural development and economic growth.

They were also at times entertaining...gotta love that Canadian French

We've talked a lot about US problems integrating civil-military operations but, I have to admit, Canada has done a lot worse by relying on CIDA. In the 1990's, CIDA got rid of must of their field project people and became, pretty much, a contract oversight office (I did some project work with them in 2003).

[Armchairguy]

I sent the link to the report to my brother and this is his response below

"Thanks, but the Senlis Council has no credibility in my eyes. They
have a European left-wing agenda and try to undermine any policy or
plan related to security operations in Afghanistan. Like the NDP,
they only want to see reconstruction. How they see that being done
in a country that is not stable is a mystery to me - and probably to
them. They'd prefer to see the Taliban take back the country with
force of arms than see us defend it - go figure.

As far as their allegations about the Kandahar hospital - it may be
true - but so what? We are in a sovereign country and if the
Government decides to use aid in a way we think they shouldn't - too
bad."

[tequila]

As far as their allegations about the Kandahar hospital - it may be
true - but so what? We are in a sovereign country and if the
Government decides to use aid in a way we think they shouldn't - too
bad."

CIDA claimed it gave aid to the hospital itself and was monitoring the hospital. Senlis visited and saw no CIDA aid in the hospital. Where does the sovereign Afghan government come into the picture here? They were not the ones CIDA supposedly gave the money to.

Aid is worse than useless if it doesn't reach the ground. If policymakers are told x dollars are being sent, the policymaker may make the false assumption that this money is doing good and no more is required. If x dollars are instead being stolen or never makes it to the ground level, the policymakers and taxpayers need to know this.

[Ken White]

CIDA claimed it gave aid to the hospital itself and was monitoring the hospital. Senlis visited and saw no CIDA aid in the hospital. Where does the sovereign Afghan government come into the picture here? They were not the ones CIDA supposedly gave the money to.

Aid is worse than useless if it doesn't reach the ground. If policymakers are told x dollars are being sent, the policymaker may make the false assumption that this money is doing good and no more is required. If x dollars are instead being stolen or never makes it to the ground level, the policymakers and taxpayers need to know this.

but I suspect you and I draw different lessons from that.

There is no way in most nations in the ME or many other parts of the world to insure more than incidentally that the aid money will in fact not be misappropriated. As that statement I just made has been true since 1947 and has been amply demonstrated again and again, I'm not sure that the taxpayers knowing this makes much difference and I am very sure that the policy makers knowing it has made absolutely no difference. We still keep trying to funnel money into such nations. Beyond an exercise in futility.

There is in every western nation a group of both governmental and non-governmental agencies who focus on obtaining and dispensing money in aid of something. Too often, they are merely self perpetuating bureaucracies who have done some good and a lot of harm. One merely has to spend time in a 'third world' country and watch these fools (not all but entirely too many) and their first world life style to come to the realization that too many (again, not all) are more focused on themselves than they are on the people they're supposed to be helping.

I've met a number of folks, gov and non-gov, who really cared and worked at it smartly. They did some good, sometimes under amazing handicaps. I've met more who did not do those things. They generally did more harm than good.

Most of the good programs aimed at getting the locals to help themselves and work their way out of the situation; most of the harmful efforts were grants and donations with few or no strings,

Idealism is responsible form much progress in the world. It is also responsible for much that is wrong and donated aid internally to the US or overseas has done as much harm as good. Altruism and generosity are great (seriously) but a level of simple logic is required in determining what is productive expenditure of funds and what is wasteful.

We are, as a nation, altruistic. However, we don't perform that simple logical exercise of determining whether an idealistic grant will just end up in a Swiss Bank account. Perhaps we should do that and better focus our efforts.

[tequila]

Don't see much disagreement on this end.

One thing you and I agree on is that much aid infrastructure is basically self-perpetuating and often both donor nations and organizations have their own self-interest in mind rather than the interest of the populations being donated to. Much of our food aid, for instance, is in reality a form of subsidy for domestic agricultural producers that often has the effect of destroying markets for local agriculture.

A book I'll recommend again for the horrifically negative effects that foreign "aid" and "expertise" can inflict on Third World nations is The Economist's Tale. Worth reading not just for the story but for the enormous difficulties involved in any aid situation.