Water trucks covered in images of fighter jets - just one problem with how aid is delivered in Afghanistan, say commentators on the impoverished country's progress.
Though billions of dollars have flowed into the country since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, Afghanistan is still struggling to recover after more than a quarter century of conflict. With the country's president, Hamid Karzai, calling for a further $50 billion over five years at a Paris donors conference this week, many commentators are calling for a rethink about how aid to country is delivered.
For Anna Husarska writing for the International Herald Tribune, relief vehicles emblazoned with images of fighter jets are just one sign that aid provision has become dangerously mixed with security operations in Afghanistan.
By merging its humanitarian arm Â? the Office for the Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs Â? into its wider military and political bureaucracy in Afghanistan, the United Nations has made a serious mistake, Husarska writes.
"The need to independently coordinate humanitarian affairs is especially urgent; nongovernmental aid organisations are politicised by association, something very perilous given Afghanistan's volatility, particularly in the south and southeast," the policy advisor at international relief organisation International Rescue Committee says.
Rosie DiManno, columnist for Canadian newspaper the Toronto Star meanwhile finds that it's the non-governmental organisations themselves that are an especially problematic part of aid delivery in Afghanistan.
"Poor co-ordination among aid agencies, an overlap in some areas, quick fix schemes that haven't been sustained, and vanity projects designed to please domestic audiences in foreign countries rather than addressing this one's urgent needs" are the most serious problems for DiManno.
Though money has been pouring into the impoverished country for several years, aid effectiveness has been undermined by disorganised donor interventions, she writes.
"Contractors and non-governmental organisations have feasted on a system with little or no accountability for money received," she says. "Afghans, sending their young children out to lug water back from a village well, can't understand why foreigners Â? the NGOs in particular Â? are living in comparatively lavish compounds, driving their ubiquitous Range Rovers, and employing huge staff."
For David Loyn, writing for the BBC, the key issue at the Paris donor conference is not just how to get more money to Afghanistan. "It is about trying to find a better way of improving the flow of aid and building the capacity of the Afghan government to manage affairs for itself."
Too much development aid has gone straight back to donor countries in the pockets of consultants, Loyn says, citing a World Bank report calling the phenomenon a "second civil service".
For Loyn, the fact that some 65-70 percent of donor money is spent outside the government budget is hugely problematic. More money must be channelled through the Afghan government, which is working to improve its accountability and transparency, he writes.
For the Chicago Tribune, meanwhile, the real problems with aid in Afghanistan are the competing agendas of international donors, and a lack of transparency on the part of the Afghan government.
"Coordination among donor countries has continued to be a problem, even with the appointment in March of UN envoy Kai Eide, who has the mandate to bring greater coherence to reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan," the paper says.
The Economist, however, writes that it's the Afghan government that remains the biggest obstacle to success. The magazine says rampant corruption and the declining popularity of KarzaiÂ?s government put attempts to channel more aid through official channels on shaky ground.
Unless the Kabul government can be made to work more effectively, the efforts of the international community may be in vain, the magazine writes.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
