Foreign ministers from around the world will fly into Kabul next week for an international conference, which, according to President Hamid Karzai's government, comes at a "critical turning point" for Afghanistan. But it's the seventh major conference in nine years on the future of Afghanistan. Is this the last of the critical turning points?
Canada is already pulling out its troops next year, but the conference and its follow-up will have an impact on how fast we disengage our civilian efforts, and our money, from the project of nation-building in Afghanistan. Stephen Harper's government has become wary of making new commitments to Kabul.
And it will have an impact on the others signalling they want out soon: the Netherlands, leaving next year; Britain, which now wants out within five; European governments facing public disquiet; and the United States, searching for an exit strategy.
On Tuesday, the world's chief diplomats will descend on security-challenged Kabul: UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the foreign ministers of Britain, France, India and 60 other participants, including Lawrence Cannon, Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister.
In theory, the Kabul conference will be the Karzai government's show, not the allies'. It is Afghanistan's turn to offer plans for nation-building, security, for better governance and less corruption. It is, in part, supposed to be Kabul's response to allies' dismay at last year's election fraud and the corruption it underlined - emphasized in January, at another conference in London.
A major issue is persuading allies that the Karzai administration is fit to handle their money, rather than sending it through non-governmental organizations and contractors.
There are concerns among allies: Reports of billions of dollars being siphoned out of Afghanistan led a U.S. congressional committee to freeze $4-billion in aid. The EU suspended a $200-million-a-year aid package, pending the results of the Kabul conference.
In theory, the allies have an obvious reason for pumping their money through the Karzai government: The whole purpose of their nation-building is to win the confidence of citizens by having them see their government delivering services to them.
"If the West is saying the goal is to stabilize Afghanistan and legitimize the government, working in a parallel way does not help," Nipa Banerjee, a University of Ottawa professor who ran Canadian aid programs in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2006, said in an interview from Kabul.
But many donors don't trust the Afghan government with money. At the London conference, they agreed 50 per cent of aid would go to Mr. Karzai's government - but only if he showed progress on combatting corruption.
Mr. Harper's government is wary: Ottawa will look at Afghanistan's new anti-corruption plans, but won't be channelling more money through Mr. Karzai's government soon.
Similarly, it is cautious about another Kabul Conference project: a program to "re-integrate" 36,000 Taliban fighters over the next five years, offering them incentives to lay down arms.
That plan, aimed at luring away so-called 10-dollar Taliban, who join the insurgency for a job, has British and American support. But another similar program failed when the promised jobs and money didn't materialize to keep the "reintegrated" fighters off the battlefield, and Canada hasn't yet backed the new one, according to an official.
It may be a little easier for Canada to express reluctance now, after announcing the 2011 withdrawal of its combat troops. But there have been lots of conferences that set unmet goals, and it hasn't been easy for allies to hold the Afghan government accountable. There's no other vehicle, so they start again.
Prof. Banerjee argues international allies who have poured in billions should share the blame for repeated failures to deliver good programs and build Afghan institutions. And she thinks donor nations should set tougher conditions on aid, such as meeting goals on results and corruption, for continued funding. But battlefield allies don't cut off money, because they don't have another strategy.
For Western allies as a whole, it's not likely to get easier over time. Their desire for an exit means the United States and other allies will probably feel pressure to channel more aid though Mr. Karzai's government to prop it up, even it doesn't clean up corruption, said Roland Paris, University of Ottawa research chair in security and governance.
"They'll probably have to accept it as good-enough governance," he said.
Campbell Clark