The fourth of occasional postings
Guest Post by Afghanistan Ag Man

Perception is reality in Afghanistan. Anything and everything–from my appearance, to my actions, to my words–can have a positive or negative effect on our missions. In rural Afghanistan, situations may not be exactly as they appear and people may not be who they claim to be.

For example, before I left for Afghanistan in late 2009, I received a lot of advice on how to conduct myself while there. One suggestion was that I grow a beard in an effort to blend in. In Afghanistan, it is widely known that beards are a symbol of both status and wisdom.  In fact, the greyer the beard the better (alas, being only 25 years old, I was out of luck on the color, but that didn’t stop me from trying). When I left the United States, I was sporting a poorly grown, patchy beard. However, it didn’t take long working with Afghan locals and farmers before I realized that my attempts were somewhat foolish (and could perhaps have actually been counterproductive).

Let’s face it: I’m an outsider. Instead of denying this fact, I purposely wear Levi jeans, plaid shirts, and an old Tractor Supply Company hat.  Hell even if I could grow a grey beard it would not help me blend in, especially because I’m usually traveling with an entourage of camo-clad soldiers.  Not to mention it’s really hard to shave out in the field, since we’re often without showers, bathrooms, and running water.

Oddly enough, because of my appearance local Afghans find it easier to trust me. In a recent meeting I attended with the Provincial Agriculture Director and his employees, it was their opinion that I look different with “my green eyes and red face.” They have seen pictures of stereotypical American farmers and I embody that picture.  To them, my appearance lends me legitimacy; it helps to convince them that I am indeed an agricultural advisor and not bent on gathering information for a secret Special Forces operation.

All of which provides a nice segue to the real purpose of this post.  Since arriving in Afghanistan I’ve become more attune both to what I think are ill-placed efforts on the part of some foreign civilians to blend in to the local communities and villages by simply growing a beard, and the hostility with which some Afghans still view U.S. military personnel.  A large part of my job is to build trust with local farmers and to work with them and Afghan ministry officials to identify and find solutions to agricultural and development problems. Yet while protocols do not allow me to travel the country without US and/or ISAF escorts, the fact that I am embedded with military personnel does not necessarily mean that my aid has become “militarized”…  

Some United Nations officials and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) operating in Afghanistan have recently criticized ISAF for allegedly “militarizing aid.” This so-called militarization, however, needs to be better defined and the execution of aid–through Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), District Support Teams (DSTs), Civil Affairs (CA)–should be kept in perspective.  

Aside from the CA team of military officers that primarily distribute our Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (CERP) and Field Ordering Officer (FOO) funds aimed at quick-impact and emergency programs, each member of my team (whether they be from the Department of State or the US Agency for International Development or the Department of Agriculture) is an employee of their home agency on loan to the Department of Defense.  Our goal is to begin development and reconstruction activities once military operations have “cleared” an area of security threats.

Though a technicality, it is important to point out that we work with the military when it comes to transportation and security needs, which allows me and my civilian colleagues to quickly respond to a cleared area. We do not, however, use our aid as a reward for intelligence. The military realized long ago that there are many tribal tensions in Afghanistan and that different tribes have tried to use ISAF as a tool to exact revenge on a rival tribe or to carry out a personal vendetta against a neighbor.  I do not–nor does my civilian team–participate in the trade of infrastructure or “Cash-for-Work” projects in return for intelligence.

In fact, to accomplish many of our goals, we usually assess a need and often work with NGOs as implementing partners of our programs, projects, and trainings, who in turn employ local nationals (LNs) to physically perform the tasks in the communities. The actual implementation of aid, therefore, is not “militarized” in the negative sense that many have labeled it.

In a perfect world, NGOs would be the first-responders, as they were before the NATO-led military operations started in 2001. However, they are usually incapable of entering zones that are insecure, even when employing local nationals. Instead, those of us from State, USAID, and Agriculture often enter these unstable areas to begin delivering the first allocations of assistance, which could include the reconstruction of community buildings or homes destroyed during fighting, to assisting with a long-standing orchard disease or pruning demonstrations.

While I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue, it is hard for me to find merit in the argument that aid should not be delivered to Afghans in Helmand or Kandahar or Wardak (three of the most violent provinces) simply because it is delivered with ISAF security and transportation.

Again, in a perfect world, I would go without military security to locations throughout the province, thus avoiding any possible confusion that I am a part of the military. Better yet, officials and employees of GIRoA would directly deliver this much-needed assistance to their fellow citizens.  In fact, as mentors and advisors to the GIRoA directors and extension workers, my colleagues and I are trying to augment their capacity to deliver aid. However, I often serve as a liaison between the farming community and Afghan agricultural extension workers due to their fear of retribution for working for GIRoA. Were I not allowed to physically walk into the fields of Afghanistan’s farms (which requires military escorts), needs would not be met.

Furthermore, I think it goes too far to place the blame for violence against UN and NGO employees in Afghanistan on blurred lines between military personnel and the PRT, DST, and CA workers they protect.  Doing so obscures the fact that the abductions and killings of foreign aid workers by the Taliban is due to calculated targeting, not “confusion” that arises from “militarized aid.” The execution of aid workers is often blatant and planned.

That said, I recognize the fine line between military and civilian assistance, which is why I take every step possible to differentiate myself from the (necessary) military aspects of our operations.  For example, when I enter a village, I do not partake in the military’s system of documenting individuals for tracking purposes. I do not go on missions or patrols that are strictly for security purposes (though often security issues and agro-economic issues are interrelated). I do not wear Army Combat Uniforms (ACUs). And I do not carry a weapon.

I know my appearance alone will not win over Afghans, but it can become an unnecessary obstacle to achieving our development goals. How I am perceived by Afghans is, rightly or wrongly, who I am to them. Likewise, if the first-line of aid must be provided by clean-shaven, foreign civilian officials like myself, accompanied by ISAF troops, then I think the label of “militarized aid” should not have the negative connotation that it currently is given by some in the UN and NGO communities.

Last week, the Senate appointed members of the conference committee to combine House and Senate versions of Iran gasoline sanctions passed in December and January. While House conferees have yet to be selected, Congress is hot to trot on its effort to iron out the differences between the two bills, particularly in light of recent statements on U.N. sanctions negotiations.

House Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard L. Berman has said that he would like to have a final agreement signed into law by April: “Time is of the essence here. Every day, Iran moves farther along on its nuclear program.”

On Friday, Senator Charles Schumer and (NoH’s favorite) Senator Jon Kyl penned a letter to President Obama asking him to abandon attempts to add exemptions for certain countries and support the Iran sanctions legislation as is. Again, the Senators stressed the time sensitive nature of sanctions, noting that the “window for implementing meaningful, ‘crippling’ sanctions against Iran is getting narrower by the day.”

Meanwhile, General David Petraeus reported yesterday on a slowdown in Iranian nuclear activities in a hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Just sayin’…

The Obama administration has repeatedly urged Congress to hold off on sanctions that may curtail its flexibility during multilateral negotiations, worried that the U.S. bill could backfire and potentially slow its own effort to pursue “aggressive sanctions.”

On the international stage, China has still shown no sign that it will support new sanctions against Iran. Following recent talks with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi maintained that sanctions weren’t the solution to disagreements over Iran’s nuclear program. He stressed that more talks were the way forward:

“Sanctions do not provide a fundamental solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. Ultimately, this issue has to be appropriately resolved through peaceful negotiations.”

There is some speculation that China will eventually agree to U.N. sanctions, but will do its best to delay and weaken any agreement to the point of meaninglessness along the way.

Part II of two posts on the Global Zero Movement
Click here for Part I

As I noted in an earlier blog, the Global Zero movement is supported by both senior level government officials, including Presidents Obama and Medvedev, and high profile celebrities who believe in the vision of a world free from nuclear weapons.  But developing a parallel base of grassroots support is equally as important as securing endorsements from the big names.  

As Global Zero puts it “as more leaders in nuclear and non-nuclear countries come out in support of Zero, a show of global public support could help tip the balance.”  Global Zero is dedicated to raising the profile of the movement to eliminate nuclear dangers by both seeking out voices guaranteed to garner attention and attempting to build the necessary public support to ensure success.

Student activism played an important role in the success of several past movements, including the nuclear freeze movement. Seeking to capitalize on this potentially enormous wellspring of support, Global Zero has worked to establish several chapters at universities throughout the United States and around the globe…

The U.S. student movement spans from coast-to-coast and now boasts 24 chapters.  They include: the University of Michigan, Miami University, Ferris State University, Washington University, Kansas State University, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Brown University, Wellesley/MIT, Columbia University, Memorial University, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, Yale University, York University, the University of Georgia, Georgetown University, Davidson College, the University of Oklahoma, American University, the University of Oregon, the University of California-Irvine, the University of Washington, the University of Alaska, Stanford University, and the University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign.  Chapters have also been established at universities in India, Japan, Pakistan, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K., Israel, and Canada.

I helped organize the launch of Global Zero @UGA in September 2009, which occurred simultaneously with thirteen other colleges throughout the U.S. as part of the first wave of Global Zero’s student movement.  During our kickoff event, we rented a table at our student center in order to spread awareness and solicit signatures for Global Zero’s declaration.  Since that time, the UGA chapter has partnered with the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network to blog about arms control and disarmament issues, and recently hosted a debate regarding the prospects for achieving a world without nuclear weapons.

Students interested in launching a chapter at their campus can get involved by completing the volunteer form on the Global Zero website and checking the box for “start a Global Zero chapter at my school.”  I can personally vouch that it is an excellent opportunity to take on a leadership role and gain experience in organizing and being part of a grassroots movement.  There are also several invaluable opportunities to network with policymakers, which could come in might handy if you’re interested in pursuing a career in nuclear weapons policy.

And on a related note for students seeking to get involved with the movement, Global Zero has recently announced a unique and exciting opportunity to become a “Roadie” and team up with the movement on its upcoming, six-week road tour to promote the new Countdown to Zero documentary before its theatrical release.  The acclaimed film, which premiered at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, has been compared to the renowned 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth. According to one reviewer, Countdown to Zero seeks to demonstrate that “anyone with a relatively small amount of money has the ability to obtain enough nuclear weapons material to incinerate everything in a five-mile radius of a large city. And they wouldn’t have to missile it into the U.S., they could simply detonate it in a container ship at a port.”

Global Zero is currently looking for “12 highly motivated, intelligent volunteers who are willing to be at the forefront of a growing global movement” to join them this spring and summer in bringing the documentary to campuses, churches, conferences, and camps throughout the country.  The application must be completed as soon as possible, as the tour begins in Washington, D.C. on March 20.  The campaign concludes at the end of May in New York City.  Your responsibilities will include setting up screenings, planning daily events, selling merchandise, handling deposits/accounting, managing inventory, and continuing investment and follow up with new supporters that you’ll meet on each campus and at each screening.  

Global Zero has agreed to cover the costs of your housing in D.C. during training and has set up host homes throughout the tour.  Transportation costs are covered, and you will be provided with a stipend for food as well.  They have also agreed to work with you and your university to provide internship credit while you’re away.

More information can be found at http://www.globalzero.org/roadtour.  Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity to spread the Global Zero movement!