E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Martin Meissner / AP
German chancellor Angela Merkel and Afghanistan's president Hamid Karzai, center, pose with the foreign ministers and delegation members for a group photo at the international Afghanistan conference in Bonn, Germany, Monday.
World leaders were meeting in Germany Monday in the hope of creating a "peaceful Afghanistan that will never again become a safe haven for international terrorism," according to German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle.
But, according to a report by the news service Bloomberg, this could mean a commitment to the country lasting nearly 20 years.
The conference in Bonn is focused on the transfer of security responsibilities, long-term prospects for international aid and, ten years after U.S.-backed forces toppled the Taliban, a possible political settlement with the insurgent group.
Afghanistan is planning to ask the world for economic aid to last until 2025 and for help paying for the country's security forces until 2030, Bloomberg said.
It added that the World Bank has estimated that Afghanistan will need about $70 billion over the next 10 years and that unless the country's budget gap was met "the good work of the past ten years will come undone."
"I'm hopeful but dubious," Robert Hathaway, director of the Asia Program at the Wilson Center in Washington, told Bloomberg about Afghanistan's future prospects. "Even if Pakistan were fully participating, I think the idea of a regional cooperation toward a settlement is going to be very difficult."
Afghanistan's neighbor Pakistan is a central player in regional efforts to improve trade and strengthen historically weak economies in what is a strategically important part of the world. But its boycott has cast a pall over the session, because it points out that nation's influence in Afghanistan and its ability to play the spoiler.
U.S.-Pakistan relations, a new 'all-time low'?
Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged ongoing support for Afghanistan, telling the conference that "the United States is prepared to stand with the Afghan people for the long haul.
The international community has "much to lose if the country again becomes a source of terrorism and instability," she added.
In addition to a financial cost, there were fears that achieving peace in the war-torn country could come at the cost of human rights.
Leading activist Selay Ghaffar told The Guardian newspaper that she is worried that improvements in women's rights could be short-lived if the international community goes into closed-door peace talks with insurgent groups such as the Taliban and Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government.
"The biggest fear we have right now is reconcilliation with the Taliban," Ghaffar told the U.K. paper. "Will women play a role in these discussions? Will women's rights be part of the negotiations?"
Leave a Comment:
This was the home of the Taliban. They had to be beaten. The rest of the world watched as America kicked their ass. It' none of their business.
The U.S. did not "topple the Taliban". The U.S. did not "kick their ass". It's really disgusting how some people think. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan because the Bush administration claimed they were harboring Bin Laden... a charge that was never proven and ultimately turned out not to be the case. The invasion was no different than the Nazis invading Poland, and should not be viewed as a moral or ethical victory... it should be viewed as a war crime.
What a scam to keep the war industry going,for over fourty years we were able to stare down and succesfully defend against the powerful Soviet empire,yet we are unable to defend our shores against a ragtag group of dirty backwards muslim warriors with rpgs and ak-47s. I refuse to believe that the greatest country in the history of the world is threatened by the medieval nitwits that wipe their azzez with their left hand. No subs no warplanes,no missiles no nukes? My god the idiots that lead the world? STOP THEM AT THE AIRPORT and secure the border!
Actually, B. Thomas Cooper, I would say the preponderance of the evidence clearly shows that Osama bin Laden was, initially living and organizing his attacks in Afghanistan, and that the Taliban was providing him a safe haven. History also shows that the U.S. led forces, and their native allies, did defeat and topple the Taliban, or if you prefer, "kick their ass", and drove bin Laden into Pakistan.
I have never seen any creditable evidence to the contrary, and you offer none. Your "Nazis invading Poland" analogy is both stupid and morally beneath contempt. Your post should be viewed as a crime against rational thought.
You must derive your understanding of the world from comic books.
dman-353357 and I would classify you as a rude know it all troll dman-353357.
Paul Immelt chariman of GE ihappens to be a leading supplier to Obama's military industrial complex.
GE doesn't pay taxes.
Immelt parties with Obama on lavish South American trips.
Must to be nice to be part of the new Washington, DC aristocracy, accountable to no one, handing out cash to all your friends.
Obama and the democrats keep spending money and meddling abroad because they want to draw attention away from the TERRIBLE job they have been doing at home, why build schools and bridges in Afghanistan?
why build schools and bridges in afghanistan? fair question, but we (americans) have been doing that all over the world for decades under many presidents from both parties. Maybe its because americans in general care about other people around the world? Of course, you can also argue that the more educated and accessible other countries are (at least up to a point), the better able they are to buy our goods and build our (cheap) products, and the higher your income, the more of a stake you have in living peacefully with others because you have more to lose.
Since most of "The World" didn't contribute or sacrifice a damn thing, their opinions are worthless! For those who stood by the USA for a cause they believed in, they have a right to have an opinion.
Pakistan is incapable of policing it's own yard. That does not make them very good for helping Afghanistan next door take care of theirs!
Oh well, PeAcElOvEr, you suggest that ununiformed and undeclared enemies can be filtered out of the millions of people who enter our country legally every year, no doubt by some form of ethnic screening, and then your offended that I point out this is a ridiculously simplistic plan, and now your are offended, so, of course, I must be a troll.
I'll try not to lose too much sleep over it.
I have a two word answer to that proposal and the second word is "you".
What is in Afghanistan we in the west want ?????
The world bank will lend them $ 70 billion dollars over the next ten years . All that to a country that is already broke . Makes me wounder ??? Political settlement with the Taliban is a joke . What they really mean is which warlord will work with them ( in other words accept the bribe money ). Just pull out and let them do their own thing .
bob
"The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe."
It is better if the whole world share the burden. If all unitedly and honestly specially China argue with Pakistan,Pakistan would fall in line. It seems Pakistan thinks in all circumstances China will back them. China hold key to this stalemate.
SK
You missed the point . The world bank and the imf are the biggest thieves in the world . They talk countries into loans they can never repay . How do you think the world economy got this bad in the first place ????
bob
You want the whole world to share the burden that we created? What a narcissistic nationalist point of view.
The US invasion was the best thing that ever happened to that country, apparently. When will the US invade the US so we can build infrastructure here?
Now THERE's an idea! Let's declare war on ourselves, surrender, and start the process of reconstructing OUR crumbling cities and infrastructure. While we're at it, close most of the several hundred (!) overseas military bases, bring the troops home, dismantle 90% of the nukes (we could still destroy the world quite nicely), stop trying to be the policeman of an ungrateful world, and rebuild our own country.
And instead of worrying about democracy in the Middle East, how about we try some here at home?
Good idea. I need a faster Internet.
Yes good idea turn our war machine on ourselves, the sooner we do the sooner the UN aid packages will arrive! Oh wait that would probably be another time when the UN is nothing more than the US, we're doomed. We can't even blow ourselves up to rebuild ourselves!
The billions given to them thus far and in the future will just stock the Swiss bank accounts of the many warlords. Our politicians are idiots if they think otherwise. You cannot buy peace from cultures such as the these.
sarg-100012 agreed. ''Our politicians are idiots''
Trillions wasted and stolen and we are no safer than before. There is no peace in the area!
True words peacelover.Our politicions are idiots.They are afraid of their own shadows so they makes some stupid foreign policy decisions all in the name of patriotism and security.
America needs to get out, stop meddling abroad, and yapping about "secret" bases, can't this White House ever shut up?
All Obama's "intervention" (paying off GE and the rest of the military industrial complex for campaign contributions) has accomplished is fling the door wide open to Islamist extremists now taking over Egypt and Libya, so much for Obama's "Arab Spring."
Rand Paul has the right idea. Speak softly and carry a big stick.
well, it wasn't obama's "arab spring" to start with, and islamic EXTREMISTS aren't taking over egypt and libya. But other than that your post is 100% accurate. :)
vermont. actually no one knows who will eventually run Libya or Egypt, and for you to make statements that "Extremists" are not doing so is premature at best. These areas have a reputation for putting their "Extreme Religon" above human life , so their past record is very indicative of the path that most rational human beings have come to expect from that region of the world.
I like how it's being touted as free aid money too,...no mention of the word loan or anything else that would indicate repayment was expected. Meanwhile, the country of Afghanistan is sitting on MASSIVE mineral deposits and the US is basically doing all of the dirty work for the Chinese who are going to be the ones coming in to strip mine that place to the ground.
I would sooner see that $70 billion dollars set on fire than see any of it wasted in Afghanistan.
Sono, don't worry I am sure that this administration is hard at work figuring out new ways to screw the american taxpayer, and 70 billion doesn;t even count as money to "Obama and his Merry Band of Thieves"
The world should not pay Afghanistan to keep the peace. The Afghanis should want peace for themselves. We should never have to pay anyone to keep "peace". This is just another ploy by the Mid East to get money from other countries. I say get the He!! out and let them fend for themselves. We should not build one thing in their country. The US needs many new buildings, bridges, roads, etc., but we cannot afford it because we are helping every other Tom, Dick and Harry country to re-build their infrastructures.
when will we ever learn that our country should come first and our people who are suffering so much here every single day .while we build up the rest of the world and make them rich .so they can sit back and laugh at our ass.it breaks my heart to see my country in the shape its in homeless hungry people all over this great usa .i love so much .we need leaders that will put us first .