At the Chicago Summit on May 20th and 21st
hosted by President Barack Obama, the central focus was the United States and
NATO trying to build an Afghan army that would allow us to pull international
troops out. However, the United States is trying to avoid getting stuck with
the check for $4.1 billion a year and over 60 countries and organizations were invited
to the summit in hopes of getting them involved with the funding issue. Originally,
the Afghan army consisted of 350,000 soldiers, but the number got reduced to
230,000 due to the economic reality in Afghanistan’s security needs after 2014.
If the number of soldiers wasn’t reduced, the United States would have had to
pay close to $7 billion a year. Keeping forces armed and fighting in a country
still heavily reliant on outside aid will cost an estimated $4 billion a year
and to supplement American assistance, the Obama administration is asking its
allies to provide about $1.3 billion of that annually. “The economic problems
in Europe and the United States, combined with the continued concerns about
corruption inside of Afghanistan, makes it an uphill battle to get countries to
make long-term commitments on funding for Afghanistan,” said Brian Katulis, a
senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. In New York, the UN special
envoy to Afghanistan, Jan Kubis, said a clear commitment was needed from
countries at the Nato summit that “If the countries will fail to support Afghanistan,
(then) in five, 10 years from now … we might have a very nasty situation coming
back,” he told Reuters. “We don’t want to have once again a restart of
everything because it will be a lost investment … including lives lost in
vain.” Countries that have already agreed to help pay include Germany
(contributing $190 million annually beginning in 2015), Britain (contributing
$110 million beginning in 2015), Australia (contributing $100 million annually for
three years), and Afghanistan (contributing $500 million toward its own army). The
goal is $2.3 billion from the U.S. and nations outside the fighting coalition,
and $1.3 billion from coalition nations other than the U.S.
Question: What arguments could America propose to the European countries
so that they may aid in providing funding for the Afghanistan effort?
Well I don't think it is right if they have to make up arguments to have European countries into the deal but an outcome if they don't help could be that they could get attacked if everybody does fail to support Afghanistan. The reason why I say attacked is because if something does go wrong it would be a very bad idea to attack a country that has helped them out for years but for the European countries that don't help they won't be considered allies or on good terms. That is really the only way I argument I can think of, if they don't have the money or just do not want to help out then they really don't have too. It is not mandatory so they have the option.
ReplyDeleteI think that America should try to persuade European countries by persuading them that it is morally right to help an ally/ fellow country. If the time comes that they need help themselves then it would be more likely that they receive aid when they need it if they helped in the past.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nicole, there isn’t really much of an argument to be made. It should be within country’s best interest to help pay and they’ll receive protection like many others. Even though the, “corruption inside of Afghanistan, makes it an uphill battle to get countries to make long-term commitments on funding for Afghanistan,” countries should contribute for their own safety. America could basically just explain that if you contribute and you’re a part of this then your country will be safe from attack and in the long run will save money just help paying now then fighting attacks without the protection of these troops. As Rachel quoted, ““If the countries will fail to support Afghanistan, (then) in five, 10 years from now … we might have a very nasty situation coming back,” that could also be another potential argument if any. That there could be conflicts in the future if these funding issue/troops issue/joining issue, isn’t addressed and solved now.
ReplyDeleteI also think that this is a tough situation, especially when the Obama administration said that it would be a long term commitment.But it also makes the countries an ally to Afghanistan, so that would be a persuasive argument. Also Rachel's point is very valid, that if they don't help now it may come back and hurt them in ten years or so, so attacking the problem now is going to be more safe for their country, it is something that they should peruse. I feel as though other countries should follow suit and help out since some have already prompted to do so. If it is going to help Afghanistan from collapsing I think that it should be a moral obligation to help a neighboring country.
ReplyDeleteI agree with kirsten, it would be difficult for a country such a europe to agree to a long term agreement that could potentially not benefit them in the future. The united states could propose that it would save europe money, and be safe from attack but it would not be a concrete promise. However, the economy around the world is failing and wars continue to get bigger. It would be in beat interest in my opinion for all the countries to work together to pay for troops to get out of the war in afganistan and save people's lives and money. If other countries are already agreeing to make this deal work, Europe should feel better about joining in. With our economic situation it would be very difficult for both countries not to contribute therefore resulting in a failure.
ReplyDelete