Steve Hutcheson

Let me see if I have this straight. Masood Qaim who recently wrote in the Guardian (I’ve Changed my Mind about the West published 30 Dec 2009) about the failure of the west to take its reconstruction activities in Afghanistan seriously, who grew up the son of a General with power, position and was part of the privileged elite in socialist Afghanistan, losing it all on departure of the Russians. He is unhappy and grumbles that the Americans or the west have not reinstated his life to that which it once was and have not bought back the development in a manner that would suit him.  As a journalist Masood and judging from his complaint, sees himself as part of the intellectual mass of Afghanistan that believes and challenges the west should be doing more to reinstate his county to its former self.

Frankly, Masood represents about one percent of Afghanistan as it stands. Afghans voted and it was Karzai whom for better or worse the apparent majority Afghans felt represents their plight best of all.  

There are substantial issues for Afghanistan to face up to, least of all the rampant corruption amongst the government, the abuse of power by the warlords and the ongoing philosophical battle that represents the fundamental policy of the Taliban versus the liberation espoused by a more humane western sense of human rights. Biting the hands that primarily feeds them is the last thing Afghans need to be doing if they are to move anywhere in the direction of change and development.

In a Facebook thread on this article posted by Nushin Arbabzadah, another Guradian journalist, I have challenge Masood to address the question of how change would come about to Afghanistan if the west was to abruptly withhold all aid and intervention in the processes that are taking place. How will Afghans solve some if not all of the seemingly intractable problems his country faces?

In another more inspiring article that I have read lately drawn by Nicholas D Kristof in the New York Times (His Gift Changes Lives published New York Times 16^th December 2009) Kristof writes about a Sudanese youth, Valentino Deng who at first escaped the rigors of the war in Sudan but on eventually achieving some sense of stability and security in the US, has returned to his country work on the development process himself, building a school where countless NGOs have failed. He is not carping about how that the west is not doing enough, he has moved on and is doing it himself, he sees himself as the lucky one and that it is up to him to actually bring about the change needed to his country.    

Masood, and he is not alone in this, need to take control of their own set of circumstances. If it cannot be achieved at the ballot box then it needs to be done irrespective of the government and the corruption that exists in the world as they know it. It is after all, only what he is presently expecting the west to do for him.  

I take umbrage at his dismissal of the work of foreign NGO’s where he labels them as the greatest source of corruption in Afghanistan. Far be it from me to defend the actions of all of them, I often disagree with the methods and programs they become engaged in, however having worked there and experienced firsthand where the problems lie, it is not the internationals per se, it is more often in the local staff who find an avenue to corrupt the processes, who take backhanders from contractors, who manipulate the flow of funds an any number of other ways of stripping the funds out of NGO programs. For the most part as a program manager, I saw my role and that of other international functionaries in part was to introduce systems and processes that perhaps would not eliminate the corruption but would at least bring it into a respectable level of say eighty percent delivered. Where international inexperience on the part of the program manager was evident is where the most rorting of the aid funding existed. Many believed much like Masood seems to believe that Afghans would not be the major protagonists in this failure to see full delivery of program funding to bring about major impact by its delivery. It is not an intentional process but one brought about by default and consequence of young idealists taking a lead in many programs.

There is a problem with much aid funding that is for sure. Programs are introduced that have no commercial basis, they are feel good projects that do little to alter the economic plight that is at the root of the complaint Masood has.  We build schools in remote locations and then cannot get any qualified teachers to attend them because of security or remoteness or simply a lack of teachers. More than three hundred schools in the eastern provinces are vacant because of this. We build and equip clinics when there is no qualified staff to man them for the same reasons.  We build roads to market and then do nothing about ensuring that there is in fact a market at the end of it. We do nothing to ensure that the 70% of rural poor who are landless have an opportunity to have greater aspiration than to simply be an itinerant farm laborer or part time Taliban as an alternative. We look at our individual programs as self important and fail to register them holistically with the overall development process needed for the county.

Simply put, Masood is wrong in his assessment. He would do well to take a leaf out of Valentino Deng’s book and consider his good fortune to be one of the lucky ones and take action to make the changes he wants for Afghanistan himself.

Capitalism as we know it is perhaps at a crossroad. It may have reached a position in the way we live our lives that only social disorder will resolve some of the difficulties we are now facing unless new options are created to alter the way our communities co-exist. Presently hundreds of millions of people around the world have been affected by the fallout of the financial collapse that has occurred over the past year. Millions upon millions are presently unemployed; countless millions of others have lost their homes and lifestyles and again hundreds of millions if not billions have suffered financial loss through the collapse of investments.

Part of the problem is the development of unfettered capitalism, the belief that the acquisition of more and more wealth is immutable and inscribed in stone. Thirty to forty years ago the salary difference between the lowest and highest in any organization may have been in the order of three to four times. Now differences in compensation in the hundreds of times are not unusual. It raises the question of how much additional contribution the highest paid is making to the overall success of the operation.

I was once complimented in that as the former manager of a program in Afghanistan and after considerable absence I gave credit and greeted as a friend a humble man whose single role was to open and close the gate as we entered the compound. As I explained to my engineer, I saw that the gatekeeper’s role was as important to the overall operation as anyone. If he was not vigilant in his task to secure the compound as he did, we were all at risk and in that respect he was critical to the safe operation of us all. The same can be said in any organization today.

People and governments however in another respect are intrinsically generous.  For the past decade I have had the good fortune to have been engaged in dispensing some of the universal largess in some of the world’s more difficult crisis zones, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Aceh and to a lesser extent Thailand and now Malaysia. People with the most have been the most generous. Bill Gates has contributed billions in the fight against malaria; countless trusts have been established by philanthropists worldwide to engage in social restoration, building schools and clinics or simply provide financial aid and hundreds of millions of people have contributed to millions of charities and social programs worldwide. From my own small involvement I have been given the managerial task to dispense more than two hundred million dollars over the period I have been working in these operations.

 But in all the time I have been involved in this line of work I have questioned the overall impact that all this generosity has made in solving the problems of half of the world’s population. If we provide aid today, we often need to provide more aid tomorrow. I liken it to placing a dollar in the cup of a beggar. We don’t solve his problem since he will most likely be there again tomorrow. We take on a role of Benefactor and Beneficiary where one party is always kept at a disadvantage and is unlikely to become our equal.

Since 2002 more than thirty billion dollars has been provided in direct aid to Afghanistan yet they still have the worst social indicators across all measures of all the countries in the world. The aid program has not been successful. We have however perpetuated the roles of benefactor and beneficiary without developing any sort of successful partnership between the two parties.

I firmly believe it is now time to address this particular issue directly. If I give you something, I want you to something in return to develop the partnership. I was heartened to see an article recently about an admirable young Sudanese man, Valentino Deng who has been moderately successful in the US and is now actively working towards building schools in his own country. He view is that “he is the lucky one so it is incumbent upon him to help his people solve some of their problems.”

In some ways, (I am an engineer so am taking an engineering approach to developing a solution) I believe that for the most part, people are prepared to work. Over the years I have employed more than 60,000 people on cash for work programs and I know and they know that the money we would hand out each week was theirs, they had earned it. But the question that always niggled me was the lack of sustainability these programs had. We would employ a thousand people for three months to construct a road to market for some isolated community. At the end of the project however, there was no continuing work for the thousand engaged in the process.     

Presently UNESCO has listed part of Penang to be a cultural and social World Heritage site. That in itself has created something of a commercial flurry in the development of the region however the most likely scenario is that it will become a gentrified enclave, eliminating in its progress the lifestyle and social framework of those that presently live within its boundaries.

The solution as I see it is to put the property development aspect required for Penang to work in conjunction with the social development work that is necessary to retain the social and cultural structures as they are. Through this there is also an opportunity to modify our approach to dealing with the social issues of the disadvantaged such that we arrive at sustainable outcomes and that problems are not simply solved only for as long as the aid continues, we enable the poor and disadvantaged to reach a position where they no longer require aid. That then brings into account a new means of addressing social philanthropy, philanthropy that enables the poor to have sustainable incomes and permanent jobs where they are in partnership with those that provide them the means to achieve that status, the benefactor and the beneficiary are as equals.

To do this requires the philanthropist to become not simple the benefactor giving alms to a beneficiary but working as the financier providing soft loans that need to be repaid and as that is returned providing further soft loans to start more projects and so on and so on all the while retaining a direct connection and equity with the process.  It is not simple one gives and the other takes, they both have a common objective and outcome in mind. Perhaps that is a solution to address the existing faults of capitalism. It is one that I am certainly working on.