The Archipelago of Fear

Are fortification and foreign aid making Kabul more dangerous?

This idea seemed academic until my friend Tilo and I left the razor wire hedgerows of Kabul International Airport. A parks planner in Vancouver, Tilo is a fastidious and cautious fellow. He had done his reading, and concluded that Kabul was a post-conflict city, perfect for an architectural holiday. He could take photos of bullet-strafed monuments without actually having to dodge bullets. But having arrived a week before me, Tilo had been sobered by the city. He had yet to walk the streets alone. His eyes were wide open, and his nostrils were an angry red. He had developed a nasal infection he insisted was the result of breathing dust-borne fecal matter. “The air is shit,” he said. “And it’s not safe here.”

Our driver sped us toward the city on a highway that had been refurbished by the Americans. From here, Kabul resembled a junk-scape of cracked mud huts, woodpiles, and rutted dirt side streets, punctuated by gleaming new glass low-rises and cellphone transmission towers. Pockmarked shipping containers served as workshops and vegetable markets. Now and then, a tremendous stench blew in through the open window. Amid this chaos, the airport road’s four lanes of slick asphalt felt like a miracle. But the fresh pavement ended a block from the American Embassy. The road disappeared under a gauntlet of loopy razor wire; giant concrete blocks; and stacks of Hesco brand blast barriers — wire mesh cubes lined with polybags and filled with dirt. They looked like refrigerators in bondage.

Evidently, the main road through Kabul had become a private driveway for the US Embassy and its neighbour, the International Security Assistance Force. In fact, Wazir Akbar Khan — the upscale neighbourhood made famous by The Kite Runner — was largely off limits to traffic and to Afghans. We joined a fuming mass of battered taxis making a halting circumnavigation of the barricaded heart of the city. “Look,” Tilo said, pointing at the sandbagged walls, razor wire, and watchtowers. “Look,” he said again, nodding at the fleets of unmarked pickup trucks that pushed through the streets, their boxes loaded with gunmen in generic uniforms. Finally, our driver steered into a canyon of concrete blocks and under a pole gate — pausing briefly for a guard to check the van’s chassis for explosives — and eased into a garage-like chamber between two house-high iron gates. He waited for the first barrier to close and the second to open, then delivered us into the light.

We couldn’t afford more than one night at the Serena, so Tilo had found us another island in Kabul’s archipelago of high-security compounds. And what an island it was. The guest house (whose name and location I won’t disclose, due to the security concerns of the international organization that runs it) inhabited a pair of walled gardens lush with honeysuckle and rose bushes. There was a badminton court, a gym, and a party room that shook on its weekly salsa nights. But it was the pool bar that distinguished the place, especially on Fridays, when bikini-clad babes and their beaus draped the lawn or frolicked in the California-blue pool. The beer was cold, and the burgers dripped with American ketchup.

It was hard to believe we were in Afghanistan. And really, we weren’t. Kalashnikov-armed guards kept Afghans from approaching the compound gate unless they happened to be employed there as waiters, cleaners, or bartenders. A few years ago, one aid worker felt so comfortable, so fancy free inside the compound, she once opted to swim topless. She was ejected from the country.

That first night, a gang of engineers and security consultants lingered at the bar until late. The Guinness cans piled up. From my bed, I could hear Texan voices howling, “We are the world. We are the children. We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let’s start giving.” Their song echoed off the compound’s high walls.

We felt safe inside those walls. Sometimes Tilo even seemed his old self. He would giggle and take photos of the pool. But this sense of security, according to many of the people working to rebuild Kabul, was entirely false. In a 2007 essay titled “Capital of Chaos,” architects Ajmal Maiwandi and Anthony Fontenot argued that while roads and sewers crumbled and squatter settlements were bulldozed, aid dollars, opium profits, and war booty had transformed the Afghan capital into a manic showcase of glittering mansions, glaring inequity, and militarized urbanity. Like the Serena Hotel, our walled country club was a monument to the failures of reconstruction that could only serve to inflame and alienate Kabulis.

I had spoken with Maiwandi months before arriving in Kabul, shortly after the Serena attack. He’d answered his mobile phone in the middle of the public garden he was rebuilding on the banks of the Kabul River. The cherry trees were pushing out the first buds of spring, but Maiwandi’s thoughts were dark. While it was unlikely that Kabulis had carried out the Serena attack — suicide bombers were known to be coming in from elsewhere — he pointed out that insurgents have a tough time blowing up hotels without sympathetic Kabulis to feed, house, and hide them.

The foreigners who ousted the Taliban back in 2001 had vowed to rebuild the country, but the failures of reconstruction were written all over Kabul’s landscape. The city’s fancy fortresses symbolized seven years of broken promises. “The city is a tinderbox,” Maiwandi despaired. “All it needs is a little spark.”

Seven years after the Taliban’s ouster, Kabul was supposed to be a bastion of stability, from which peace and prosperity would ripple across Afghanistan. But if Maiwandi was right, then the failures of reconstruction were actually contributing to a feedback loop of fear, fortification, and instability. I was fascinated and troubled by the possibility that foreign aid might be helping remodel Kabul into an even more dangerous place.
PreviousPage 2 of 8Next
4 comment(s)

ross HermistonNovember 16, 2008 15:27 EST

My dream would be to be a professor of a compulsory course for all Canadian Members of Parliament. I would assign the excellent, informative essay by Robert Montgomery, THE ARCHIPELAGO OF FEAR, to the class as compulsory reading. I would require them to write an essay on the reasons why we should abandon our complicity with the American - Nato dominated International Security Assistance Force. I would also require them to comment specifically on the following statments by Mr. Montgomery:
(1)"I was fascinated and troubled by the possibility that foreign aid might be helping remodel Kabul into an even more dangerous place."
(2)"During the Soviet occupation, the Russians were despised for situating their bases in urban areas, effectively using locals as shields and shutting down parts of the city. It had occurred to many Afghans I spoke to over the next two weeks that the West was essentially doing the same thing. "We expected the international forces not to follow the same mistakes as the Soviets," said Ahmad Fahim Hakim, an architect and deputy chair of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission."
(3)Shravan Kashyap, a long-time UN hand, told me over an English breakfast in the rose garden that he was working on a project, funded by the Canadian International Development Agency, to improve refugee settlements near Kandahar. CIDA was doing fantastic work, he said.
"So what are those settlements like?" I asked as he munched on his toast.
"Oh," he said matter-of-factly, "I'm not actually allowed to go there."
(4)After seven years and billions dollars in aid, Kabul still lacked a fully functioning sewage system. The streets were a moonscape. Electricity flowed to only a few neighbourhoods, only every second night, and only for a few short hours. Most homes lacked running water. Most of the three million–odd refugees and returnees crowding the city lived in informal settlements with no services whatsoever.
(5)What do you want?" I took to asking people. "Security," answered many. When I pressed them, I realized that they were talking mostly about jobs, food, and a way to take care of their families.

RickWNovember 16, 2008 20:08 EST

I simply cannot believe our politicos to be as naive as Hitler supposedly was when his commanders assured him that whole divisions were still in reserve, when they were in fact non-existant.

I can only conclude that there is another, far more sinister, agenda behind all this. I mean, in this age of instant communications, how can it be anything else?

AnonymousDecember 12, 2008 02:48 EST

I'm currently under a UN contract here in Afghanistan. And although my duty station means I reside in the North-Eastern Region, I've spent a fair share of my time in Kabul - mostly in transit to and fro Dubai's Terminal 2.

Names like the Serena (where I had brunch for the first time precisely one week ago today - Friday being the national day of rest) and the unnamed compound where the author stayed (adorned with a swimming pool and bunker bar playing background to a United Colours of Benetton ad) being an only too familiar reality of my time here. While the rare escapes into the cities various rose gardens and strolls through commercial streets leave me with a sense of anxiousness (or, even worse, worry that I’m not being anxiousness enough). Since I arrived a few months back, a South African teacher, two British NGO workers, and one French NGO worker have been shot, in broad morning day light on the streets of Kabul. Their crime, coming here wearing their hearts on their sleeves and being precisely where their attackers knew they would be. Regardless of, the effectiveness of their work (of which I admittedly know nothing about) or the overhead costs of their respective organizations, was the punishment fitting?

The author leaves an ambiguous message here, one that I have no clear answer for: Given that these architectural monstrosities breed suspicion, rage, and inevitably violence ; yet, as the good Colonel so clearly pointed-out, death by IED’s and well aimed bullets are a relatively common (and escalating) occurrence here – how does one mediate immediate security concerns with constructing a city that will one day no longer require heinous rolls of barbered wired perched atop every second wall and at least one automatic weapon in sight regardless of where you stand? Who lays down their shields/weapons first?

(Please note that following the authors suit I’m discussing only international civilian daily realities, and not those of the various international militaries. That in itself is a whole other story…)

NiloufarFebruary 05, 2009 03:38 EST

I was living in Kabul for a while, and most of the journalists I encountered there, were those who used to research on the internet, because they were too intimidated to leave the compound to actually investigate on the street level. It's understandable to a certain degree, but more interesting are the implications of this method for the content of their reports and the actual picture they eventually portray. They won't get to talk to common people, Afghans, so they won't be able to write about their concerns. In the security bubbles where they hang out they will just meet other expats who have their own justified concerns, and this concerns start reflecting on the journalist, who in the end will produce a one-sided story. There is no space for complexity there, no space for ambiguity. But Kabul as a city is full of complexity. It is a very ambiguous situation, there is no good and bad, no black and white. That is actually something you can only find out while trying to get the full picture, that's what Charles Montgomery tried and actually he captured the complexity of the situation very well. Very rarely I read articles about Afghanistan in Western media that reflect the actual situation, and go beyond what we desire to hear, or what we are used to hear in the expat community. Investigative journalism has become a very rare discipline...

Now, the question is very valid, who lays down their weapons first? But shouldn't we first ask ourselves, what was the actual mission of the international intervention, and what has to be done to achieve it? One aspect has been completely neglected in 7 years, which is work, or if we dig deeper, support to build up a strong economy. And in this both the Afghan government and the international community have definitely failed to show commitment... When people are bored, unemployed, hopeless, hungry and betrayed, they easily become preys for radical brainwashing. So why not defeating the problem at it's roots?

The whole story has another dimension, reflected in the number of illegal Afghan refugees in Europe(mostly young men escaping a futureless life). They are illegal because economic matters is not enough to get a residence permit. But what if economic issues might eventually lead to political, radical actions? What if economic problems are born out of political instability and post-conflict turmoil that the West partly accounts for? The West interfered, for many good reasons, but at the end of the day, every mission has to be accomplished, even if it entails a lot of trouble. Self-criticism, empathy as well as neutral analysis are part of this process...

Comment on this article
  
I agree to walrusmagazine.com’s comments policy.

Canada & its place in the world. Published by
the non-profit charitable Walrus Foundation
TwitterFacebookRSS
On newsstands now
New Issue on Sale
March 2012
Subscribe online for as little as $2.49 an issue. Visit The Walrus Store
to buy prints of our covers
The Walrus Laughs
Search the web, support the Walrus Foundation
COPA