USIP, 2 July 2012
Bill Byrd gives the international Afghanistan conferences held so far a critical glance. He writes that they ‘have helped keep attention focused on Afghanistan, elicit financial support, give a “seat at the table” to all partners, generate good strategic documents, and provide a forum for the Afghan government. However, the meetings often have raised excessive expectations; lacked meaningful follow- up; undermined their own objectives; prioritized diplomacy over substance; focused more on donors’ issues than Afghan problems; oriented the Afghan government toward donors; diverted resources toward meetings; resulted in meeting fatigue; and sometimes seemingly substituted for action.’ He adds some proposals to make them more effective.
This article was last updated on 9 Mar 2020