Afghanistan

[Ziggurat]

Making an entire country dependent on foreign aid, rather than ending a needless poverty crush caused by seizing all the liquid wealth of the nation, is a disastrous idea.

What liquid wealth are you talking about? Are you talking about oil? Because we haven't seized that. Afghanistan produces basically no oil.

Yes, I oppose making the entirety of Afghanistan a nation of beggars when giving them their money back and allowing them to resume being self-sufficient is an option.

We aren't preventing them from being self sufficient.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Hard to explain how the US has any right to outright steal half the money.

Making an entire country dependent on foreign aid, rather than ending a needless poverty crush caused by seizing all the liquid wealth of the nation, is a disastrous idea.

Yes, I oppose making the entirety of Afghanistan a nation of beggars when giving them their money back and allowing them to resume being self-sufficient is an option.

But it isn't their money. The money that's been frozen is international aid money- the same aid money you oppose being given to them. Your position makes no sense to me.

 

[Planigale]

But it isn't their money. The money that's been frozen is international aid money- the same aid money you oppose being given to them. Your position makes no sense to me.

No it is not. It is the Afghan government funds. It is not some sort of charity account. Some of that money will be tax revenues paid by Aghans for the Afghan government to deliver services such as education and health care. Some may have originated from aid / donations from NGOs, other government, the UN, as well as the US. However once donated it is the recipients money not the donors. The US government has no moral right to take money paid by Afghans or donated by British tax payers.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

But it isn't their money. The money that's been frozen is international aid money- the same aid money you oppose being given to them. Your position makes no sense to me.

Imagine if someone stole all the money out of the Fed overnight, suddenly making the entire population of the US unemployable because firms had no liquid cash, then set up some soup kitchens with half of the money while stealing the other half.

Would you consider that a good policy?


You don't even have to be a bleeding heart to see this is a dumb move. We're creating a massive population of people who can't provide for themselves (for reasons totally outside their control). Those that don't die of starvation or illness will make up a huge international refugee population. This is the foreign policy equivalent of blowing your foot off with a shotgun.

 

[Planigale]

What liquid wealth are you talking about? Are you talking about oil? Because we haven't seized that. Afghanistan produces basically no oil.



We aren't preventing them from being self sufficient.

Liquid as in cash. A major issue in Afghanistan is a liquidity problem, a lack of cash.

Few countries are self sufficient. Afghanistan is in the middle of a prolonged drought which in the best circumstances would have needed the importation of food.

Neo-colonial systems that insist the Afghans cannot run their own country, but have to have services delivered by outsiders, actually prevents the country moving to self sufficiency and self governance and democracy.

There are well established mechanism used in other developing world countries to ensure that money given to a government is spent on services and not syphoned off. The present Afghan government has agreed to financial governance mechanism being put in place, so if the Afghan government had access to its funds it could start paying teachers, open schools, educate children, and all this would inject liquidity into the economy.

 

[Planigale]

The Taliban did not control all of Afghanistan before the US invasion.
The civil war was not created by America; the Afghans did that themselves, after the Russians pulled out.

Although the US did fund one side in the civil war in a deliberate attempt to overthrow the communist government. It is not as if this is not a consistent US policy.

Once again, it is entirely within the power of the Taliban to prevent this famine, and I cannot grasp why you keep pretending this isn't the case.

The Taliban may be closer to God than you are, but they really do not have the ability to control the weather (particularly retrospectively), and put right the several years drought that has led to food dependency.

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's seriously deficient.
Karzai was chosen by the Afghans, in the form of a loya jirga. His presidency was then reaffirmed by elections.
Ashraf Ghani, Karzai's successor, was also elected.

However the elections were not open to the Taliban. The loyalty Jirga was not inclusive of the Taliban. Hamad Karzai views the Taliban as his 'brothers', and has called on the international community to continue to engage with the new Taliban government - saying his country risks becoming the world's worst humanitarian crisis. He also criticised the United States - saying their bombs were no longer needed in his country
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-59505688
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn-TiiG1c1I

Apart from the Taliban, who were, after all, the main targets of American bombing, and who seem to have retained all of their independent agency.

Perhaps the US should have focussed on integrating them rather than bombing them? Dealt more with the real threats such as ISIS? Fewer drone strikes on innocent families? As you rightly said the many Afghans killed did not destroy the Taliban.

As of April 2021, more than 71,000 Afghan and Pakistani civilians are estimated to have died as a direct result of the war.

The United States military in 2017 relaxed its rules of engagement for airstrikes in Afghanistan, which resulted in a massive increase in civilian casualties.

The CIA has armed and funded Afghan militia groups who have been implicated in grave human rights abuses and killings of civilians.

Afghan land is contaminated with unexploded ordnance, which kills and injures tens of thousands of Afghans, especially children, as they travel and go about their daily chores.

The war has exacerbated the effects of poverty, malnutrition, poor sanitation, lack of access to health care, and environmental degradation on Afghans’ health.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan

 

[Cosmic Yak]

No it is not. It is the Afghan government funds. It is not some sort of charity account. Some of that money will be tax revenues paid by Aghans for the Afghan government to deliver services such as education and health care. Some may have originated from aid / donations from NGOs, other government, the UN, as well as the US. However once donated it is the recipients money not the donors. The US government has no moral right to take money paid by Afghans or donated by British tax payers.

The money, along with another $2bn held in Europe, the UAE and elsewhere, is primarily the proceeds of international assistance given to Afghanistan over the last two decades.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60312232

My post about this was in response to Suburban Turkey's post saying that food aid should not be given to developing countries.
I actually do think that food aid, and aid money in general, is a good thing, provided it can reach the people who need it: in many countries, as we all know, corruption often prevents this from happening.
To reiterate: it was Suburban Turkey who opposed food aid, and who wrongly claimed that the frozen funds were not made up of such aid not me.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Although the US did fund one side in the civil war in a deliberate attempt to overthrow the communist government. It is not as if this is not a consistent US policy.

After the Russians pulled out? Really? It was my understanding that, once the Russians left, America abandoned Afghanistan as well, as there was no Cold War benefit to be had there any more.

The Taliban may be closer to God than you are, but they really do not have the ability to control the weather (particularly retrospectively), and put right the several years drought that has led to food dependency.

I have already posted about the factors that have led to the current food crisis in Afghanistan. Drought was among those factors.
My point about the Taliban having the power to prevent the famine was to say that, if they adhered to the human rights commitments they promised they would when they gained power, there wouldn't be this problem. However, the Taliban are more concerned with oppressing women and taking revenge on those who opposed them than in helping the general population. This is entirely within their power to affect.

However the elections were not open to the Taliban. The loyalty Jirga was not inclusive of the Taliban.

I can find no reference for this claim- do you have one?
My understanding is that a loya jirga is composed of tribal and community leaders from across Afghanistan. This would include all of the Pashtun areas that are loyal to the Taliban.
Furthermore, you are responding to my comment about the elections, which itself was a response to ST's claim that the Karzai government was a puppet government. What is your position on this?

Perhaps the US should have focussed on integrating them rather than bombing them? Dealt more with the real threats such as ISIS? Fewer drone strikes on innocent families? As you rightly said the many Afghans killed did not destroy the Taliban.

The vast majority (circa 85%) of Afghan civilian casualties have been caused by other Afghans, principally the Taliban.
https://www.voanews.com/a/south-cen... the,on undetermined anti-government elements.

Regarding 'integrating'- seriously? How naïve are you? Do you really think the Taliban are interested in compromising a single speck of their fundamentalist fanaticism? What evidence do you have that they are prepared to do this?

 

[Planigale]

To some extent i am sympathetic to Biden's actions. He is probably doing the best that can be politically managed.

Normally government funds cannot be seized by persons under the principle of state immunity. In the US for certain specified state sponsors of terrorism this immunity has been removed. This ruling has been applied retrospectively.

This has allowed a court seizure of Afghan government funds that would normally be immune. (They are not Taliban funds but Afghan government funds; a bit like confusing US government funds with Democratic party funds if you were suing the democratic party. The NY federal court has confused this with the fact that the Taliban are now effectively the party in power, although not recognised as such by the US, allowing government funds to be seized for the alleged actions of the Taliban. If there was a change of government would these assets be freed up?)

The reality is if the victims of 9/11 are suing the Afghan government / Taliban in a New York based US federal court presided over by a political appointed judge no one would expect the Taliban to win. By no independent standards could this be regarded as an independent judicial process. In addition since Afghanistan government has no liquid assets paying for legal representation is problematic. The court case against the Taliban in NY was awarded against the Taliban who were unable to defend the case as they were unable to employ counsel, as any such payment would be criminal. This is why such cases normally go to an international court.

To free up the funds would I think require Biden to get legislation amended, this would I think whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter politically impossible. I think that putting half the assets under US control so they can be dispersed to aid the people of Afghanistan is probably the best that he could do. My guess is that he could not get agreement to give them over to the Afghan government to spend even under supervision.

The problem is that this fails to deal with the issue that without liquidity a government cannot function, it maintains the US in a neocolonial relationship (unwanted by both sides I guess) dispensing out money to run the Afghan education system and health care system. This can have problems because certain US policies e.g. in terms of reproductive rights are then forced on the people of Afghanistan. Preference is likely to be given to US suppliers and contractors.

The US legislation has the effect that some of the poorest people of the world (e.g. Sudan and now Afghanistan) have to give money to the wealthiest people in the world. For actions that the governments were not directly involved with, and indirect involvement was far more peripheral than many countries. In both countries one can almost certainly say there will be deaths from starvation to deliver unneeded money to US citizens.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...on-u-s-support-for-the-people-of-afghanistan/

The continued reference to the US courts as independent in this matter is almost comic.

Then there is of course pending court action against various parties including the US for crimes in Afghanistan, with the US refusing to accept jurisdiction of international courts.

 

[Ziggurat]

Liquid as in cash. A major issue in Afghanistan is a liquidity problem, a lack of cash.

Ok.

But the cash they have is cash we gave them. This wasn't money they earned.

Few countries are self sufficient.

Depends on your metric. Most countries are not dependent on handouts.

Neo-colonial systems that insist the Afghans cannot run their own country, but have to have services delivered by outsiders, actually prevents the country moving to self sufficiency and self governance and democracy.

None of that compares to the obstacle of the Taliban.

There are well established mechanism used in other developing world countries to ensure that money given to a government is spent on services and not syphoned off.

You think any of those mechanisms will work with the Taliban? Yeah, no. The Taliban is not even a government in the traditional sense of the word.

The present Afghan government has agreed to financial governance mechanism being put in place,

And why on earth would you actually believe them? Why do you expect anyone else to believe them? They ALWAYS break their promises.

so if the Afghan government had access to its funds it could start paying teachers, open schools, educate children, and all this would inject liquidity into the economy.

Bwahahahahahaha!

Yeah, no. The Taliban aren't about to start educating children, except possibly in religious studies.

 

[Planigale]

Ok.

But the cash they have is cash we gave them. This wasn't money they earned.

Who is we? Everyone agrees the frozen bank account is general funds belonging to the Afghan government. Most aid is given to NGO some is given directly to the government. Afghan governmental tax receipts are over $100 billion / yr. The US aid is about $5 billion / yr. The vast majority of the money will be from Afghanis and Afghani businesses given to pay for education health care etc.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.TAX.TOTL.GD.ZS?locations=AF

Also what do you mean by earned? How do governments earn? Or is this some racist slur that the Afghan people are just sitting around waiting on handouts?

Depends on your metric. Most countries are not dependent on handouts.

For comparison Israel gets $3 billion in US aid /yr.

Most countries do get handouts only a minority run a surplus. The handouts may be in loans, but does that mean the US is not earning its keep since it runs the biggest deficit? The US is pretty dependant on handouts / loans from China.

None of that compares to the obstacle of the Taliban

You think any of those mechanisms will work with the Taliban? Yeah, no. The Taliban is not even a government in the traditional sense of the word.

And why on earth would you actually believe them? Why do you expect anyone else to believe them? They ALWAYS break their promises.

Bwahahahahahaha!

Yeah, no. The Taliban aren't about to start educating children, except possibly in religious studies.

Most of this is prejudice mostly based on ignorance I guess.

You are right. The Taliban did not plan on suddenly taking power. There was supposed to be a transition. There are a number of interesting interviews with Wahid Majrooh, he was the minister for health prior to the Taliban. When the Taliban took power unlike most of the government he stayed on and carried on coming into work. The Taliban turned up asked who he was, he said the minister for health, and they said carry on. After about six weeks, the Taliban appointed a new minister for health but asked Majrooh to stay on as an advisor. He is scathing about his previous colleagues who ran away. He is clear the same systems are in place now as before the Taliban came to power, money given to the health ministry would be used as it was before the Taliban came to power.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...is-on-the-verge-of-collapse-but-im-optimistic

You may not know about the restrictions used to ensure that governmental aid is not syphoned off, but they are used elsewhere, are effective and the Taliban have agreed to appropriate financial supervision being put into place.

You have made a very definitive statement, the Taliban ALWAYS break their promises, so all I have to show is one promise they did not break. One example of a promise they made that they did not break was not to attack US forces as they left. As religious fundamentalists they are perhaps less likely to break promises than normal politicians. Everyone agrees the Taliban crack down on corruption.

The restriction on education has only applied to public schools, private schools and universities have reopened, including for females.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022...s-reopen-with-small-number-of-women-attending
It is worth remembering that pre Taliban under the 'US' administration only 40% of girls attended secondary school. So there was not a true universal education system. One major problem is the lack of money to pay for schools and teachers, since the Afghanistan government has no money available to it. The Taliban have said all schools for both sexes should reopen after the winter holiday in March. In general Islam has had a more enlightened approach to education than Christianity. More women (as a %) do STEM subjects at university level in Iran and Pakistan than in the US.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Interesting post, but I think you should check your numbers, 100 billion USD tax receipts seems high when the data site you cite gives Afghan GDP of 22 billion USD.

 

[Ziggurat]

Interesting post, but I think you should check your numbers, 100 billion USD tax receipts seems high when the data site you cite gives Afghan GDP of 22 billion USD.

For me, his link pulls up a graph of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, and it peaks in 2017 at about 9.9%. I have no idea where his $100 billion figure comes from. If I try to use that website to show GDP instead, I get this:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=AF
For 2017, the GDP is listed as $18.75 billion. Combining the two puts annual tax receipts at around $1.86 billion for 2017. That is considerably less than $100 billion.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Everyone agrees the frozen bank account is general funds belonging to the Afghan government.

Really? Who is everyone? I certainly don't agree, and neither do the sources I have cited. For that matter, neither do your sources.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

From this link:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...on-u-s-support-for-the-people-of-afghanistan/

When Kabul fell to the Taliban, Afghanistan had over $9 billion in reserves held in the name of the DAB, or the central bank, outside of Afghanistan. And this included $7 billion in reserves held in the United States, with the rest of the reserves largely being in Germany, UAE, Switzerland, and a couple of other states.

The source of these reserves — fundamentally, these reserves, including the $7 billion in the U.S., are fundamentally kind of the proceeds of the sustained and significant international assistance that the United States and other international donors gave to Afghanistan over the past two decades.

Planigale, did you actually read your own source?

 

[Planigale]

Interesting post, but I think you should check your numbers, 100 billion USD tax receipts seems high when the data site you cite gives Afghan GDP of 22 billion USD.

Yes, in the cold light of day the number looks wrong. I don't have time to check it myself. But I am happy to be corrected. That is why I provide a reliable source so I can be fact checked.

The point remains that Afghan government funds will be from a variety of sources and is not money that belongs to the US.

Taking someones money keeping half for yourself and then saying look how kind we are we'll spend half your money for things we think you need. This is not going to make Afghanis grateful to the US. Perhaps Afghanistan needs to speak to Britney's lawyers!

 

[Planigale]

From this link:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...on-u-s-support-for-the-people-of-afghanistan/



Planigale, did you actually read your own source?

It was four AM, (insomnia) I though I had read the graph correctly but the number just looks wrong this morning.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Two further points on this:
Firstly, if that money was held as reserves outside of Afghanistan prior to the Taliban takeover, why is it only needed now? How was the country managing without it before then?
Secondly, just as a technical point: if the aid money was given to the Afghan government, and that government was violently overthrown, can the new regime legitimately claim that money to be theirs?

 

[theprestige]

Seems to me that if foreign nations are holding cash reserves for a state, The faction that overthrows the state's government and installs itself as the new overlords isn't automatically entitled to all the assets held by or for the previous state. All these donors and funds had deals with an Afghani government that folded the moment Biden let the dogs out. The Taliban don't get to inherit those deals and profit from those arrangements just because they're sleeping in the capital now. Especially considering they've given no credible assurances that they'd use the money to help the people they've conquered.

It'd be like giving government grants to the mafia for community improvements, just because the mafia has co-opted the community's government and is now on the hook for the well-being of the community.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Seems to me that if foreign nations are holding cash reserves for a state, The faction that overthrows the state's government and installs itself as the new overlords isn't automatically entitled to all the assets held by or for the previous state. All these donors and funds had deals with an Afghani government that folded the moment Biden let the dogs out. The Taliban don't get to inherit those deals and profit from those arrangements just because they're sleeping in the capital now. Especially considering they've given no credible assurances that they'd use the money to help the people they've conquered.

It'd be like giving government grants to the mafia for community improvements, just because the mafia has co-opted the community's government and is now on the hook for the well-being of the community.

A pretext of the US seizing the funds out of a spirit of safeguarding it from the Taliban collapses when the US announces they are going to steal half of it to pay out to American citizens.