This conversation is closed.

Do you think that economic intervention would work to provide stability to Afghanistan?

Since the announcement of the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, there has been some discussion regarding economic intervention to provide stability in Afghanistan. Russia had helped with providing support for infrastructure and has noted interest in expanding its economic support, and Chinese companies are already mobilizing in the region. India has also noted interest in providing economic support, and I might have forgotten a couple of other countries.

In exchange for providing economic support, Russia and China have noted interest in the mineral resources in Afghanistan worth billions of dollars. Russia is also interested in reducing opium production in Afghanistan that has funded the Taliban and caused a heroin addiction problem in Russia.

Do you think that economic intervention would be successful in Afghanistan? If so, what strategies should these foreign countries should take, and what angles do you think they should focus on in providing economic support? Do you think there will be any consequences, drawbacks, or challenges that economic initiatives will face?

  • Jan 9 2013: The Middle East just needs to govern itself through legitimate regional entities composed of naturalized Middle Eastern people to brainstorm and solve their own problems. Many of the complaints come from those that point to peripheral powers as the reasoning for instability.

    I would love for economic intervention to be the answer, but unless someone/entity/NGO/Government is ready to put at least 15 years of hard, legitimate work into it, then it should not be considered. This country is not a 5 year solvable problem. True economic intervention that would yield positive results has to be migrated through generations. Thus, why several interventions don't yield the results we disire due to the global society’s want for relatively quick solutions.
  • Jan 8 2013: "Do you think that economic intervention would work to provide stability to Afghanistan?"

    Maybe in the far future, for now you can help a lot more people somewhere else, for the same amount of money. Peasants in Ghana or Bolivia won't shoot you in the back after you gave them money to invest in their farm (and then give the money to extremists who throw acid on girls who go to school), so why exactly should Afghanistan be a priority for economic aid?
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • 0
    Jan 8 2013: no
  • thumb
    Jan 8 2013: No. Deport all non-Afghan people from the country and keep non-Afghan people out of the country. After several years the country will stabilize when the Afghan warlords strike a deal to run the country peacefully. And the world can go on without them.
    • thumb
      Jan 8 2013: What is your reasoning here, edward? Because countries other than Afghanistan open their borders to foreigners and are not unstable. For example, the United States has not had to deport all non-Americans, and yet it is stable.
      • thumb
        Jan 8 2013: I am out of my league regarding world political history but my perception is that, in my lifetime thus far, the unrest in Afghanistan is the result of occupation by military forces from other countries. Those forces have been "Defensive/Protective" and "Offensinve/Invading/Conquering". It strikes me that the one experiment we have not conducted is to leave them alone. I think it is worth a try.
        PS- You see the US as stable? You should post that as a conversation. Thank you!