Warlords set to siphon off Afghan aid millions

• Christian Aid fears the 'quick fix' will be to extract soldiers like these, as opposed to building a stable future for Afghanistan Picture: Jerome Starkey

Christian Aid raised concerns that international aid is being redirected to subsidise military goals in the war-torn country at the expense of humanitarian objectives.

International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell will today announce that Britain is to boost spending on aid projects in Afghanistan by 40 per cent in a bid to speed the exit of troops from the country.

The government announcement comes as it has emerged the coalition plans to withdraw British troops from Afghanistan by 2014, a year earlier than the previously mooted deadline.

But Christian Aid said the cash increase, from 510 million to 710m, had more to do with a "quick fix" to help get troops out.

Paul Valentin, international director of Christian Aid, said: "The UK's plan should be all about staying with Afghanistan, so that its work is seen as locally owned and not a foreign imposition.

"We have to be in there for the long haul. The worry is that people are looking for quick fixes, in order to get foreign troops out of the country by 2015."

He went on: "Christian Aid has worked in the country for more than 20 years and has not seen the UK Government's plans for increased aid to Afghanistan. However, from the media reports we have seen, they are fraught with danger. We fear that the extra money will be spent with military considerations in mind, rather than pure humanitarian ones.

"This is certainly what has happened in the past and there are instances of foreign countries directing aid money towards warlords with appalling human rights records.

"We will need a lot of assurances that the Government is not pursuing a 'hearts and minds' policy in the country, with increased aid aimed at reinforcing Nato efforts, rather than improving ordinary people's lives."

Speaking ahead of a major international conference in Afghanistan tomorrow, Mr Mitchell said securing progress in the country was his "No1 priority".

Afghanistan will be the main beneficiary of an ongoing review of where UK taxpayers' cash is spent abroad - with payments to dozens of countries set to be reduced or axed.

The current Conservative/Lib Dem coalition has pledged to protect international development spending and increase it at a time when other departmental budgets, apart from health, are facing cuts of up to 40 per cent.

Labour suggested that the government was trying to covertly use some of the international aid to subsidise other budgets such as defence, foreign affairs and economic development.

Former international development secretary Douglas Alexander claimed Afghanistan and Helmand province in particular, where much of the money is going, is already one of the most heavily aided regions in the world.

He said: "The primary challenge in those areas affected by the insurgency has not been a lack of money but a lack of security. At a time when there remain serious questions about corruption across Afghanistan, Andrew Mitchell must explain more clearly than he has to date how this cash will be spent effectively to secure the outcomes he seeks."

US congressmen voted to suspend $4bn of aid to the Afghan government earlier this month after a report revealed at least $4.2bn (around 2.8bn) has been exported in cash over the last three-and-a-half years from the country.

US and British fraud investigators fear that most of the money leaving Kabul has been siphoned off from international aid contracts, or made from the country's rapidly expanding opium trade.

There were also suggestions last night that Mr Mitchell had diverted money from countries such as China, where he recently cancelled aid, because opinion polls show most voters want international aid to be cut at a time of austerity at home. Just 29 per cent agreed with increasing international aid in a recent poll.

Mr Mitchell said: "Nowhere is the case clearer of why well-spent aid overseas is in our national interest than in Afghanistan. The UK is there to prevent the Afghan territory from again being used by al-Qaeda as a base from which to plan attacks on the UK and our allies.

"While the military bring much-needed security, peace will only be achieved by political progress backed by development. I am determined to back up the efforts of our armed forces as we work towards a withdrawal of combat troops."

The extra cash will be focused on stabilising 80 key districts, bolstering the Afghan economy and "getting the government to a place where it can meet the basic needs of its people".

Mr Mitchell also wants to boost education, with an aim of getting six million children into school within two years and tens of thousands of Afghans into vocational training.

This is despite some of his colleagues, including Defence Secretary Liam Fox, claiming that Britain is only in Afghanistan for national security reasons, not nation building.

There were also doubts over the government's plans to get British troops out of Afghanistan by 2014.

The date was revealed in a communique ahead of the international conference in Afghanistan to be held tomorrow where the country's government will ask donors to put 80 per cent of aid money behind programmes that the Afghans - not foreign powers - deem important to development.

Afghan MP Daoud Sultanzoy yesterday described the ambitions to hand over security within four years as "lofty" and "very optimistic". "Six to eight years would be more realistic in my opinion," he said.

Haroun Mir, the director of Afghanistan's Centre for Research and Policy Studies, added that the 2014 handover date might be a concession to the Taleban which has demanded foreign forces leave ahead of any peace negotiations.

"This is part of a political settlement," he said. "The army couldn't hold itself together for a single day on its own.

"Most of the soldiers are recruited from the north. Most of the Taleban are from the south."

He also suggested the Afghan government would "unravel" when a firm date is announced.

Currently, the recruitment of Afghan troops and police is almost on schedule. The army is expected to grow at more than 2,800 soldiers a month over the next 15 months, and could still meet its October 2011 target of 171,600 personnel. Meanwhile the police are estimated to reach 134,000 by that time.

However, there are concerns about the quality of recruits. A sergeant promoted straight out of basic training because he could read was responsible for killing three British troops last week and there are concerns that other recruits may be ready to join the Taleban.