This paper builds on remarks on mutual accountability at the July 18 U.S. Institute of Peace panel discussion “From Transition to the Transformation Decade: Afghanistan’s Economic and Governance Agenda after Tokyo” (second session on “Filling the trust gap—what does ‘mutual accountability’ mean, what are the first steps, what is the role of civil society?”). The views expressed in this brief do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Institute of Peace, which does not take policy positions.

Peace Brief: Mutual Accountability

Summary

  • At the Tokyo conference on July 8, donors committed to provide massive civilian aid to Afghanistan and improve aid effectiveness, while the Afghan government committed to a number of governance and political benchmarks.
  • The outcome at Tokyo exceeded expectations, but a review of Afghan and international experience suggests that implementing the Tokyo mutual accountability framework will be a major challenge.
  • The multiplicity of donors could weaken coherence around targets and enforcing benchmarks, and undermine the accountability of the international community for overall funding levels.
  • Uncertain political and security prospects raise doubts about the government’s ability to meet its commitments, and political will for needed reforms understandably may decline as security transition proceeds and the next election cycle approaches.
  • It is doubtful whether major political issues can be handled through an articulated mutual accountability framework with benchmarks and associated financial incentives.
  • The civilian aid figure agreed upon at Tokyo ($16 billion over four years) is ambitious and exceeded expectations; if the international community falls short, this could be used to justify the Afghan government failing to achieve its benchmarks.
  • Finally, given past experience there are doubts about how well the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board (JCMB) process (mandated to oversee implementation), and the series of further high-level meetings agreed at Tokyo, will work.

About This Brief

William Byrd is a development economist and has worked on Afghanistan in various capacities over the past decade and longer. During 2002–2006, he was stationed in Kabul, Afghanistan, where he served as the World Bank’s country manager for Afghanistan and then as economic adviser. He is currently a visiting senior expert at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

This paper builds on his remarks on mutual accountability at the July 18 U.S. Institute of Peace panel discussion “From Transition to the Transformation Decade: Afghanistan’s Economic and Governance Agenda after Tokyo” (second session on “Filling the trust gap—what does ‘mutual accountability’ mean, what are the first steps, what is the role of civil society?”). The views expressed in this brief do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Institute of Peace, which does not take policy positions.

Explore Further

  • Afghanistan after Tokyo
    Watch Scott Smith, deputy director of USIP Afghanistan programs, assess the two schools of thought at a July 18 event on Afghanistan's economic and governance agenda after the Tokyo Conference:

Related Publications

Kabul School Bombing Reinforces Fears Over Post-Withdrawal Security

Kabul School Bombing Reinforces Fears Over Post-Withdrawal Security

Thursday, May 20, 2021

By: Belquis Ahmadi; Fatema Ahmadi

For the Dasht-e-Barchi neighborhood of Kabul, home to the Hazara minority group, the devastating May 8 bombing outside a school is part of a disturbing trend of attacks in the area. The bombing killed at least 85 and injured around 150 — mostly young girls — and coincided with concerns of escalating violence as the United States withdraws combat troops from Afghanistan. Although no group has claimed responsibility, the Islamic State group (ISIS) has perpetrated similar attacks in the past and many suspect it was again responsible. 

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Peace Processes

Even After Withdrawal, U.S. Retains Leverage Over Taliban

Even After Withdrawal, U.S. Retains Leverage Over Taliban

Thursday, April 29, 2021

By: Karen Decker

President Biden’s announcement that U.S. troops would withdraw by September 11 has many Afghans and observers warning of a quick collapse of the Afghan state and a new phase in the country’s civil war. Without minimizing the challenges ahead, the United States should avoid any self-fulfilling prophecy of imminent collapse by insisting that the only future for Afghanistan is one that advances the gains of the past 20 years. As troops begin to depart, it is an opportune time to examine three forms of leverage the United States has to promote a political settlement.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

Democracy Is the Afghan Government’s Best Defense Against the Taliban

Democracy Is the Afghan Government’s Best Defense Against the Taliban

Thursday, April 22, 2021

By: Scott Worden; Belquis Ahmadi

The Biden administration’s announcement last week that U.S. troops would be out of Afghanistan by September 11 came as a blow to the current peace talks and many Afghan citizens who appreciate the rights and freedoms that international forces have helped to defend against the Taliban. Still, President Biden made clear that the United States continues to support the Afghan government and democratic system, and, to that end, the administration has indicated it would request $300 million from Congress in additional civilian aid. But Biden explicitly de-linked U.S. troops from that equation — stating that they would not be “a bargaining chip between warring parties.”

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes; Gender; Democracy & Governance

View All Publications