In fact, it was built by Italy not once but twice.

In November, a suicide bomber attacked Italian troops erecting that bridge, killing six Afghan civilians and wounding another nine. One of those killed was a respected elder who demobilized his community from local militias; another hoped to be a schoolteacher like his father; a widow fears she and her five daughters face destitution. Since the Italian troops did not cause the harm, they did nothing to assist the families.

But they did build a new bridge. This is the prevailing logic for aid to Afghanistan.

The Paris Donor Conference this week is pledging $20 billion to Afghanistan, far short of the $50 billion hoped for. But none of that will likely go to civilian war victims suffering deaths, injuries and lost homes. The issue is not even on the agenda in Paris. That's despite President Hamid Karzai's continued outcry at civilian casualties, despite increasingly vocal complaints from the Afghan people and despite the efforts of many non-governmental organizations, mine included, to raise the issue with ambassadors even as they were packing their bags here in Kabul to go to Paris.

I meet regularly with these representatives of donor countries to ask them how their aid benefits Afghan war victims. The majority tell me that civilian harm is a sensitive issue back home, that their troops always avoid causing civilian casualties, and that supporting civilian victims is not their responsibility. Instead they are helping Afghans in other ways, they say: The Germans are providing "winter relief"; the French have agriculture programs; the Japanese have been committed to disarmament and health.

Meanwhile, existing programs (nobody needs to reinvent the wheel, it turns out) for helping war victims are woefully underfunded. NATO's International Security Assistance Force has a Post-Operations Humanitarian Relief Fund that provides immediate help to Afghans harmed by military operations. All NATO member states are welcome to donate, but only nine out of 26 have, and now the fund is running low on resources. The separate Afghan Civilian Assistance Program, which rebuilds the lives of families injured directly or indirectly by any international military troops, has been supported only by the United States. Finally, some ISAF members have case-by-case compensation for Afghans harmed by their troops, but with the exception of the United States, no country systematically tracks and proactively aids Afghan war victims.

The problem is that if donor countries supported these programs, they'd also have to recognize the harm, though unintended, that their bullets and bombs cause. This is why Canada is willing to pay more than $2 million Canadian to compensate families displaced by the construction of a road in Kandahar; but from 2005 to 2007 gave compensation to only 33 Afghan war victims. This is why Britain has spent more than 7.2 million pounds in "quick impact" projects in Helmand province since 2006, but when Afghans harmed by its troops need assistance they are told to get their claim to the British court system and prove the government's liability. This is why the Italian government is willing to build a marginally valuable bridge, but not to reach out to a widow struggling to support what is left of her family.

The problem is not confined to these three countries or to those with the burden of troops deployed in high-conflict areas. That civilians suffer tremendous losses in the fighting, without aid or redress, should be as much a concern for donor countries whose troops are not allowed to leave their bases as for those on the front lines.

The many other commitments that will be made this week at the Paris conference to security, education, legal reform, healthcare and development are all critical. But in not paying attention to the effects of conflict on civilians, they often fail to provide what many Afghans and Afghan communities need most. You cannot rebuild from conflict by ignoring the effects of conflict. When Afghan civilians are left to suffer on their own, it thwarts Afghanistan's development and exacerbates instability in the country.

The harm Afghans have suffered in past and ongoing conflicts is at the very root of increasing animosity against international forces.

The good news, if donor countries will listen, is that it doesn't take much to make a big difference. If those gathered at the Paris Conference pledged to civilian victims the amount they spend in one day on military spending in Afghanistan, the programs mentioned above could help many hundreds if not thousands more war victims. As they're pledging those funds, they would do well to remember what happened at Paghman. Six families will never get their loved ones back. Nine Afghans will never have a normal, pain-free life again.

They could have been helped. Instead, they got a bridge.

(Erica Gaston is senior fellow based in Kabul for the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Share This Article With Planet Earth

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit
YahooMyWeb	Google	Facebook

Related Links
News From Across The Stans

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News