The folly of nation-building in Afghanistan

(This is an excellent article about our concepts of nation building and what
they may or may not achieve based on a historical context. Although I
somewhat disagree with the Authors analogy of communist invading of
Afghanistan to democratic nation building, (As Russia was actually trying to
take over the whole country) the theme of the article remains true. From a
historical perspective, both Japan and Germany were ready and willing to
accept the placement of a new government because of social, economic, or
cultural reasons. Afghanistan is not eager to accept a new government on
these qualities. It is my opinion that a positive economic and trade based
posture should be taken, set the Afghan people up with the roots of a market
and provide basic sustenance and aide once the military campaign has
completed. Capitalism, democracy, and increase in well being will naturally
follow. - Mike)

The folly of nation-building in Afghanistan
----------
The Cato Institute
by Gary Dempsey
Some members of Congress are calling for a "nation-building
effort in Central and South Asia [as] the long-term solution
to the terrorism problem." Dempsey is skeptical because
Afghanistan lacks "the rule of law, property rights, free
markets, and an entrepreneurial culture." (10/17/01)

http://www.free-market.net/rd/670486145.html

The Folly of Nation-Building in Afghanistan

by Gary Dempsey

Gary Dempsey, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute, is a
co-author of Fool's Errands: America's Recent Encounters with Nation
Building.

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Joseph Biden
(D-Del.), recently claimed that an American-led nation-building effort in
Central and South Asia is the long-term solution to the terrorism problem.
For Biden, this nation-building effort should focus on changing the economic
and social climate of Afghanistan and its neighbors, and include something
akin to the Marshall Plan's reconstruction of Europe
after World War II. Besides setting an awkward precedent -- that harboring
terrorists will eventually bring new roads and heaps of foreign aid --
Biden's nation-building recommendation overlooks the obvious: Postwar
Afghanistan will look nothing like postwar Germany, or for that matter,
postwar Japan.

For starters, the high level of education and industrial know-how in
postwar Germany and Japan helped launch an economic recovery in both
countries that is inconceivable almost anywhere else. Germany also had a
strong tradition of the rule of law, property rights, and free trade before
the Nazi era. Japan's elite embraced an honorific culture that respected and
obeyed the wishes of the victor in battle. Afghanistan and its neighbors, in
contrast, have little in the way of either liberal traditions or cultural
attitudes that are agreeable to massive foreign interference.

What's more, the leaders of Germany and Japan were not just utterly
defeated in war. Their ideology was totally discredited in the eyes of their
own people by war's end. This made both countries prime candidates for
nation building. It's premature to assume the same pattern will hold for the
leaders of the Taliban. Radical Islam could remain dominant, and its
defenders could be seen as national heroes or martyrs.

Another probable difference: Even before World War II ended, the Germans
and Japanese had become amenable to Washington's policy prescriptions. In
fact, according to University of Illinois political scientist Richard
Merritt, by the time the war ended, substantial numbers of Germans "were
disgusted by what the Nazis had done
and increasingly realized that Nazi actions were not accidental but were
consistent with and even prefigured by Nazi ideology. . . . To some measure,
then, the American Military Government enjoyed a ready market for its
product." By the end of the war the Japanese, too, had become receptive to
profound political change in ways not replicated since.

There's little evidence the United States will enjoy a "ready market" for
its product in Afghanistan. History, in fact, points in the opposite
direction. The Afghans did not attack Moscow's puppet regime in Kabul and
fight a war with Soviet invaders in the 1980s because they wanted democracy,
liberalism, and free markets. They did it because they opposed forces trying
to secularize and modernize their country; i.e.,
nation build. This presents a major problem for those who would equate
nation building in Afghanistan with nation building in postwar Germany or
Japan.

Or take Biden's idea of a Marshall Plan. It is telling that one has to go
back more than 50 years to find an example of such a scheme that worked.
Similar plans since then have routinely failed. Indeed, since World War II
the United States alone has provided $1 trillion in foreign aid to countries
around the world. The result?
According to the United Nations, 70 of the countries that received aid are
poorer today than they were in 1980, and an incredible 43 are worse off than
in 1970. Good intentions must be matched by an effective, non-corrupt
administration on the receiving end.

The failures are not so surprising if one studies the Marshall Plan
experience in detail. If massive government spending could work anywhere, it
was in 1948 Europe: Skilled labor was largely available, the rule of law and
property rights had a long history, and the customs of a commercial society
were recoverable. All it needed was physical capital. But even under those
circumstances, there is no real evidence that the marshall Plan alone was
responsible for Europe's regeneration. U.S. assistance never exceeded 5
percent of the GDP of any recipient nation, and there seemed to be an
inverse relationship between economic aid and economic recovery. In fact,
France, Germany, and Italy all began to grow before the onset of the
Marshall Plan, and Great Britain, the largest recipient of aid, performed
the most poorly.

The real lesson of the Marshall Plan is that the rule of law, property
rights, free markets, and an entrepreneurial culture are what are necessary
for economic success. Afghanistan has none of these things. And well-meaning
senators in Washington can't make it otherwise.