Rule of Law in Afghanistan -- Time for a New Approach?
Abstract
The thesis of this paper is that current Rule of Law initiatives in Afghanistan are fractured and ineffective; a comprehensive program of new initiatives is required to craft and deliver sustainable reform. This paper argues that organizational self-interest, the absence of unity of effort, and, most importantly, the failure of Western nations to accept unity of command have all retarded progress on Rule of Law. The lack of advancement across all Rule of Law sectors is primarily a result of Western indecision, conflicting strategies, and parochial national agendas. The subsequent problems facing donor nations, organizations, and coalition partners have stemmed from a lack of consensus in strategic direction. International approaches continue to differ even amongst the closest of allies, particularly with regard to strategy and operational direction in the counternarcotics sector. Debate continues over the strategic way forward in areas of strategic leadership, international or Afghan primacy, and "top-down" or "bottom-up" reform. Conflicting strategic thought exacerbates the debate over policy and focus of effort, in particular whether efforts should be directed at short-term or long-term initiatives. Additional differences exist over whether to train the military or the police, and whether to implement a troop surge or a political, diplomatic, and informational surge. The author argues that conflicting policy initiatives, corruption, and failures in both military and International strategies have led to a failed Rule of Law. He concludes that it is time for a new approach to Rule of Law in Afghanistan. He recommends the establishment of a single overarching body under a single super envoy to oversee the Rule of Law in Afghanistan.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Mar 17, 2009
- Accession Number
- ADA530221
Entities
People
- Sean M. Burke
Organizations
- National Defense University