Select Committee on International Development Fourth Report


4  Improving security

Security conditions

68. Increasing insecurity and the continuing insurgency are threatening the reconstruction effort in parts of Afghanistan. ActionAid writes that, "at no time since 2001 has the security situation in the country looked so dire. Over the last year, the Taliban have regrouped, reorganised and refunded their insurgency, launching bitter battles across the southern third of Afghanistan."[82] Oxfam also report increasing death rates resulting from the conflict in 2007.[83] In June 2007 the BBC reported that:

"The Taliban have new confidence and new tactics, and their campaign against the government and its NATO backers has been increasingly successful since the beginning of this year. In the east of the country, around Jalalabad, suicide bombings have become such frequent occurrences that the road from there to Kabul is now known as the Baghdad road." [84]

69. During our visit in late October 2007 the security situation was relatively calm (although our visit programme in Helmand was altered slightly following a suicide bomb outside the Lashkar Gah bus station which killed one person). However soon after our departure Afghanistan suffered one of its worst suicide bombings to date in the northern town of Baghlan when around 70 people were killed, including five MPs and many school-children.[85] In January there was an attack on the Serena Hotel in Kabul where we stayed during our visit.[86] This is being considered as the start of a new campaign to target foreigners. The Secretary of State assured us that the incident had not affected DFID's commitment to working in Afghanistan although it had restricted the movements of DFID and Embassy staff and may affect its ability to recruit staff for longer terms.[87]

70. Some analysts have commented on the increasing reach of the insurgency,[88] and some even question whether the "war" is winnable.[89] The Prime Minister's statement of 12 December 2007 sought directly to contradict such conclusions—"let me make it clear at the outset that as part of a coalition we are winning the battle against the Taliban insurgency."[90] Lord Malloch-Brown, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated that, "the Taliban do not control a single province or have the ability to hold territory, showing they are far from being a resurgent force."[91]

71. Yet, despite initial coalition military success, a Taliban-led insurgency has continued to threaten security and stability in Afghanistan. Christian Aid told us that:

"the current insecurity caused by a mix of the Taliban-led insurgency, the ongoing activities of illegal militias tied to provincial warlords or factional commanders, and general criminality is having a debilitating effect on the environment for development."[92]

This point was echoed in our conversation with the former Finance Minister, Ashraf Ghani.

72. The security situation does, however, vary across the country. In the north and the west it is relatively peaceful and more development is possible. In the south it varies from place to place. DFID told us that "in the area round Lashkar Gah it is relatively easy to get out and see what is going on; in other parts of Helmand the security situation has been more difficult."[93] However the areas of the country which are becoming more insecure have been steadily increasing according to successive UN accessibility maps.[94]

73. The UK Commander of Task Force Helmand, Brigadier Andrew MacKay, told us that NATO forces were facing a classic insurgency in Afghanistan. He said the Taliban's failure to win conventional battles had led them to start using 'asymmetrical' tactics such as suicide bombs and improvised explosive devices designed to spread fear, even in areas which are relatively secure. We note the UK Commander of Taskforce Helmand's explanation that the key objective of the military was to gain the consent of the local population and to marginalise the insurgents and starve them of their support base. We also note that most people in Afghanistan do not support the insurgency so that influence-winning activities are more important than overt military force. Cooperation and understanding between NATO forces and the Afghan Government and armed forces are crucial to success.

74. We would also like to pay tribute to the commitment and sacrifice being made by UK forces in this difficult environment. We were disappointed by the tone and timing of the recent criticisms made by President Karzai of UK military operations in Helmand, particularly as these concerns were not raised with us by the Government of Afghanistan during our visit. We are concerned that such comments risk undermining the support of the British people for the UK's long-term commitment to Afghanistan.

75. Brigadier MacKay explained that in Afghanistan "tier 1 Taliban" are regarded as the hardliners, frequently linked to Al-Qaeda, who cannot be reconciled. Many of those who are referred to as "tier 2 Taliban", on the other hand, are often unemployed youth who will work for whoever is willing to pay them. This group, sometimes also referred to as the "$10 Taliban", was more likely to renounce violence and back the new Government.

76. The Secretary of State told us that around 5,000 former fighters had already moved back into the mainstream.[95] However without providing such individuals and their families with jobs and incomes they are likely to return to the Taliban. This highlights the need for a joined-up military, political and reconstruction effort.[96]

77. Increasing insecurity and the continuing insurgency are threatening the reconstruction effort in many parts of Afghanistan. The relationship between security and development is a key determinant of success in post-conflict environments. While it is important that the NATO forces remain in Afghanistan to help provide the security which is a necessary precondition for reconstruction, it is clear to us that without tangible improvements in people's lives the insurgency will not be defeated.

REGIONAL SECURITY

78. UN Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) maps of Afghanistan reveal that security has deteriorated, particularly in the south eastern areas which border Pakistan.[97] A recent Chatham House paper states that:

"The conflict has increasingly become a regional one. Taliban bases in Pakistan cannot be targeted by coalition forces; however, logistical and armament supplies out of Pakistan are significant, and Pakistan is used as a recruitment base. As long as parts of Pakistan serve as a safe haven for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, coalition forces will not be able to control Afghanistan."[98]

79. In discussions we had in Afghanistan Dr Barnett Rubin from the Centre on International Cooperation, New York University, also highlighted the key part that Pakistan played in Afghanistan's future. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in the borderlands are controlled by neither government and are the breeding ground for Taliban recruits and a major drug trafficking route.[99] Efforts on the part of the international community to encourage more meaningful dialogue between the two countries have seen some positive outcomes, including the return of about four million Afghan refugees. Nevertheless current instability in Pakistan, exacerbated by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, creates the risk of further insecurity. The Secretary of State fully acknowledged that the security of Pakistan and Afghanistan were inter-related and that the UK would continue to monitor the border closely.[100]

80. We believe that greater international pressure should be placed on Pakistan to control more effectively the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Unless this happens the Taliban will have a steady supply of recruits and the international effort to bring stability and security to Afghanistan will be futile.

81. There are also close ties and regular cross-border traffic between Iran and western Afghanistan which would certainly become a focus for instability in the event of military action against Iran.

International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the UK troop contribution

82. In December 2007 the Prime Minister announced that UK troop numbers in Afghanistan would remain at about 7,800. Afghanistan is the UK's largest single deployment and the UK troop contribution is the next largest after that of the USA. This reflects the Government's commitment to bringing security and stability to Afghanistan. We support the Government's commitment to bringing security and stability to Afghanistan and commend the work of our armed forces there.

83. There are approximately 41,700 NATO troops (including support elements) from 37 countries in Afghanistan under International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) command.[101] In addition there is a US-led counter-insurgency operation, Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) with a separate command structure. A Chatham House paper on Afghanistan argues that this dual command structure violates the principle of unity of command in military operations and increases the chance of operational confusion.[102] The Commander of ISAF, US General Dan McNeill told us that he was not overly concerned about the two command structures since he did not believe it was currently causing problems.

84. General McNeill did however express strong concerns about the extensive use of national caveats by contributing nations which, he said, severely hampered ISAF's progress and meant that in practice troops would be needed in Afghanistan for a longer period. National caveats might for example prevent some troops from being sent to the south where insecurity is greatest. The Defence Committee commented on this in its report: "While we note the progress that has been made in reducing national caveats, we remain concerned that national caveats risk impairing the effectiveness of the ISAF mission."[103] We support the conclusion of the Defence Committee that the excessive use of national caveats increases the risk of impairing the effectiveness of the International Security Assistance Force and will increase the length of time which NATO troops are required to be in Afghanistan. The UK Government should continue to press contributing nations to reduce these to facilitate more effective ISAF operations.

85. We saw good co-operation between civilians and the military in the Helmand PRT. The team was led by a UK diplomat who had previously worked on post-war reconstruction in the Balkans. Its members include the Deputy Commander of Taskforce Helmand and a DFID representative (see paragraph 165). We are concerned, however, that civilian-military co-operation is weakened because UK military commanders serve only a six-month tour of duty while the civilians are in post for longer periods. We ask the Secretary of State to discuss with the Ministry of Defence the feasibility of extending UK military commanders' tours of duty in Helmand to, say, one year.

Security Sector Reform

86. One of the key objectives of the NATO coalition in Afghanistan has been to create an effective and legitimate Afghan security sector. Unfortunately progress with this objective has not been as rapid as had been hoped. Security Sector Reform was initially undertaken by dividing responsibilities between the different coalition partners. Germany was in charge of creating an Afghan National Police Force (ANP) and the US for building up the Afghan National Army (ANA). The UK assumed the lead role in counter-narcotics, Italy for reforming the legal system and Japan for disarmament, demilitarization and reintegration. Some commentators argue that this approach, while theoretically sound, did not work in practice, not least because the pillars are all interlinked and lack of progress in one area would impact on the others.[104]

THE AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY (ANA)

87. In Afghanistan we were told that the Afghan National Army was making good progress but that it was still three to four years from being capable of independent military operations at brigade level and even then it would need the international community to retain an 'overwatch' responsibility (providing logistical and medical support and operational back-up). The Army is currently being trained and mentored by NATO forces. The aim was to create a force of about 70,000-80,000 and they are about halfway there. Afghan troops were reported as having played a significant role in the retaking of the town of Musa Qala from the Taliban in December 2007 alongside NATO forces [105] There has been significant progress in the building up of an effective Afghan National Army. There is still some way to go before it is a fully capable force and we commend the role played by the UK to date in training and mentoring.

THE AFGHAN NATIONAL POLICE (ANP)

88. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) told us that the Afghan National Police were still five to six years away from being an effective force which has the trust of the Afghan people. The intention is to have a force of about 82,000 and currently there are 50,000.[106] Many people told us that the police were corrupt and that top positions could be bought in strategic areas. The Head of the Afghan Drug Inter-Departmental Unit, Mr Holland, told us that,

"particularly in the south one sees real anxieties about the way the police behave. The police are perceived to be part of the problem as well as the solution […] Until people have confidence in the police they will not be able to fulfil their role." [107]

Corruption was partly attributed to low pay. In addition drug use amongst the police was reportedly extensive. One obstacle to rooting out corruption is the lack of political will within the Government of Afghanistan. The Ministry of Interior is, according to the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU) report, "corrupt, factionalised and criminalised". Without reform of the Ministry of Interior, donor contributions to police reform are likely to be wasted.[108]

89. A key problem is the lack of police trainers. While military duty requires and anticipates service overseas, it is difficult to release senior police officers from their jobs to train police officers in other countries. We were told that "the quality [of Afghan police officers] varies but there are consistent problems in terms of both levels of training received and capability. That is particularly true in the most insecure areas in the south."[109] The majority of training is carried out by a US company, DynCorp, which has about 500 police trainers and mentors in Afghanistan. Mr Holland told us that the US has recently carried out a review of its training programme:

"It recognises that more needs to be done. Essentially, it is looking at it on a district-by-district basis, taking the police out of the districts for some intensive training over a two-month period to sort out the problems and then putting them back into the community and mentoring them intensively over the next few months to ensure much better quality." [110]

90. According to an Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit paper there is a fundamental difference between the "German vision" of the police as a civilian law and order force and the "US vision" of the police as a security force with a major counter-insurgency role. The Secretary of State agreed that these two visions need to be reconciled and consensus reached on how to meet the policing needs in Afghanistan.[111]

91. Progress in creating an effective and legitimate Afghan National Police force has been slow. Corruption and bribery are rife and this is hampering acceptance of the police as a force for good. There are insufficient police trainers and there is no clear consensus about what type of police force—paramilitary or civilian—is required. We believe that the issue of remit must be clarified as quickly as possible.

The EU Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL)

92. From 2002 to 2007 the Germans were responsible for coordinating international support for the Afghan National Police (ANP) as the lead donor in this sector. In 2007 Germany's lead role was subsumed within a newly established EU Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL). The intention is for the mission to be fully operational by March 2008 and to comprise 190 EU police officers but there are concerns about the slow start-up pace of the EU mission, again mainly due to the difficulty in finding sufficient police trainers and mentors. The Secretary of State told us there were also problems with procurement of security equipment and a lack of effective leadership. He said that the UK was determined, while respectful of others' roles, to have a key role in EUPOL looking forward.[112]

Women police officers

93. AREU also points out that not enough has been done to ensure that there are sufficient female police officers. Of the 63,000[113] police being paid salaries in 2006 only 180 were women.[114] This is especially important in Afghanistan where women and men are often segregated and it is culturally inappropriate for a male police officer to interrogate or search a woman. Provision of more female police would help to ensure that domestic crime against women does not go unrecorded and that women are not imprisoned unlawfully. According to AREU:

"most women would be reluctant to go to an all-male police station to seek assistance or protection, or to file a criminal case—especially if their problems relate to sensitive topics such as rape, domestic violence or forced marriage." [115]

The Ministry of the Interior has facilitated a US initiative to create a women's police force. This is a step in the right direction. The German government had previously built a women's only dormitory for training purposes but was unable to fill it because women are either not permitted or are unwilling to join the police force.

94. We believe that the new EU Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL) is a step in the right direction in that it makes policing a shared EU responsibility. However we are disappointed that progress has been so slow. This mission should ensure that the recruitment, training and retention of female police officers is given appropriate priority within the overall imperative of building an efficient and effective police force.

Community defence initiatives

95. In his statement to Parliament the Prime Minister suggested that one way forward for policing was to "increase our support for community defence initiatives where local volunteers are recruited to defend homes and families."[116] In response to our questions about this initiative the Secretary of State said that the Government would not be paying for arms for this force. He said it was simply a small-scale pilot project which would seek to use existing community leaders in a more organised fashion, based on a traditional form of self-defence, Arbakai, to help maintain security.[117] Reports suggest that the US general in charge of training the Afghan police has expressed reservations about the project which risks arming local militias.[118] Efforts since 2006 to create an auxiliary police force in Afghanistan have been problematic.[119]

96. We have reservations about the suggestion of arming local communities to defend themselves. While we accept that there are many people who already have weapons, we believe that it is important that donors do not encourage or exacerbate factionalism and tribalism.

The justice sector

97. Reform of the justice sector has also been slow. A reformed justice sector would be less vulnerable to corruption and more capable of tackling corruption in other sectors. Afghanaid told us there is a definite lack of faith in the justice system and this is reflected in the latest human rights report on Afghanistan by UNDP.[120] In Afghanistan we were told by ISAF that creating rule of law and a functioning justice system would take time. There were only 1,500 prosecutors, many of whom were not properly educated and their pay was so low that they were often open to bribery. Christian Aid and other NGOs have expressed concerns about the balance in donor funding between the police and army and the justice sector:

"A proper balance also needs to be found between spending in these sectors [army and police] and other, currently under-funded areas, such as the justice sector and agriculture. An example of the existing problems in the criminal justice system was illustrated by a recent survey undertaken by a Christian Aid partner on the issue of domestic violence in western Afghanistan. In only 10% of cases of chronic domestic violence had women sought help from the police and the courts." [121]

98. Particular concerns have also been raised about the ability of the justice sector to defend the rights of women and children, who make up the majority of the population, despite the fact that Afghanistan has signed a number of international covenants committing it to the equal treatment of women. For example BAAG writes that:

"Despite much progress in the area of human rights, such as the establishment of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Committee (AIHRC), evidence shows that the situation for women and girls in Afghanistan, in terms of their access to justice, continues to remain extremely limited." [122]

According to AREU:

"The majority of women in Afghanistan's prisons are incarcerated for allegedly having committed "moral crimes", such as prostitution, adultery, or simply running away from their homes or husbands. According to one report, 56 percent of the women in Kabul prisons in 2005 were detained for "moral crimes". Running away is not codified as an offence in the formal justice system, yet according to one study, 20 of the 80 women in Kabul's Pul-i-Charkhi prison were accused or convicted of running away from home, with prison terms ranging from 6 months to 14 years imprisonment. It is very often the girls and women who run away to escape domestic violence or forced marriages that are prosecuted, while the perpetrators of violence escape prosecution." [123]

Similarly the NGO Gender Action for Peace and Security reports:

"there is little access to justice for women in Afghanistan, they are poorly represented within the police and formal justice sector institutions, they have little representation in the informal or traditional dispute resolution mechanisms and the Ministry of Women's Affairs operates at a low capacity and with minimal influence on government policy." [124]

99. The lack of a functioning state justice sector means that Afghans are resorting to traditional justice mechanisms. The Secretary of State confirmed that 80% of justice was still delivered through informal systems.[125] This is problematic for women as aspects of traditional law discriminate against women and children. The President of Afghanistan told us that there was a need for a national approach to justice rather than the current dual system. While some progress had been made, for example in the creation of a supreme court and a high court as well as district courts, a fully functioning state justice system would take years to establish. We discussed the issue with the Secretary of State who felt that this was an issue which had to be worked out with the Government of Afghanistan and could not be imposed by donors.[126] The UK Government has contributed £2 million to reform of the justice sector.[127]

100. Violence against women is still pervasive and without a functioning formal justice sector threatens to set back progress made thus far in the realisation of women's rights. A key part of protecting women's rights is ensuring they have proper access to justice. Funding for the justice sector is disproportionately low and we believe its reform should now be a priority for donors and for the Government of Afghanistan. We recommend that the UK Government play its part in this through increased funding for the justice sector from the Stabilisation Aid Fund. We accept that changing the values of society is a long-term process; however, we reiterate that the Government of Afghanistan should seek to honour its commitments to international human rights law in respect of women. Consideration should also be given to inviting Islamic countries to advise the Government of Afghanistan on establishing a justice system that would meet the needs of women, children and minorities and protect their fundamental human rights.


82   Ev 63 [ActionAid] Back

83   Ev 124 [Oxfam] Back

84   "Can the war in Afghanistan be won?" bbc.co.uk/news, 17 June 2007. Back

85   "At least 50 dead as bomber hits MPs' school visit," The Independent, 7 November 2007; Survivors recall Baghlan bomb horror", Error! Bookmark not defined. Back

86   "Taliban attack luxury Kabul Hotel" bbc.co.uk/news, 15 January 2008 Back

87   Q 124 [DFID] Back

88   "Warning shots turn into lethal new development as violence drifts north," The Guardian, 7 November 2007. Back

89   "The Taliban can lose every battle-yet still win the war", The Daily Telegraph, 12 December 2007; "Britain's Afghan mission is a fruitless and failing pursuit," The Guardian, 12 December 2007. Back

90   HC Deb, Col 303-307, 12 December 2007. Back

91   Lord Malloch-Brown "Taliban no longer a credible threat," Letter to The Independent, 29 November 2007. Back

92   Ev 96 [Christian Aid] Back

93   Q 20 [DFID] Back

94   UN Department of Safety and Security, Afghanistan Accessibility Maps; UNDSS, Half-year Review of the Security Situation in Afghanistan, 13 August 2007. Back

95   Q 126 [DFID] Back

96   David Kilcullen, "Three pillars of counterinsurgency," remarks delivered at the US Government Counterinsurgency Conference, 28 September 2006.  Back

97   "Aid map reveals expansion of no-go zones", The Times, 5 December 2007. Back

98   Noetzel and Scheipers, Coalition warfare in Afghanistan, p 1.  Back

99   Ev 126 [Oxfam] Back

100   Q 180 [DFID] Back

101   www.nato.int Back

102   Noetzel and Scheipers, Coalition warfare in Afghanistan, p 3. Back

103   Defence Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session 2006-07, UK operations in Afghanistan, HC 408, para 45. Back

104   Ev 97 [ActionAid] Back

105   "Brigadier strides into battle against Taliban", The Times, 17 December 2007. Back

106   Q 24 [DFID] Back

107   Q 26 [Mr Holland] Back

108   Andrew Wilder, Cops or Robbers? The Struggle to Reform the ANP, AREU, July 2007. Back

109   Q 24 [Mr Holland] Back

110   Q 24 [Mr Holland] Back

111   Q 166 [DFID] Back

112   Q 165 [DFID] Back

113   The exact number of police in Afghanistan is not known. It is likely that salary payments are based on the number of authorised police positions rather that the actual number of police, which DFID told us was 50,000. Back

114   Andrew Wilder, Cops or Robbers? p 9. Back

115   Ibid  Back

116   HC Deb, Col 303-307, 12 December 2007. Back

117   Q 175 [DFID]. Arbakai is limited mainly to the south-east of Afghanistan. Back

118   US attacks UK plan to arm Afghan militias, The Independent, 14 January 2008. Back

119   Andrew Wilder, Cops or Robbers? p 15. Back

120   Q 102 [Afghanaid] Back

121   Ev 97 [Christian Aid] Back

122   Ev 83 [BAAG] Back

123   Andrew Wilder, Cops or Robbers? p 10. Back

124   Ev 103 [GAPS] Back

125   Q 170 [DFID] Back

126   Q 171 [DFID] Back

127   Q 168 [DFID] Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 14 February 2008