BBC Bothered by Capitalism in Afghan Capital
BBC Bothered by Capitalism in Afghan
Capital
Reporter details the dangers of free
market economics because landowners make a profit.
Its a challenge to paint peace and
prosperity in a bad light, but its a challenge that the BBC and
reporter Tom Coghlan were willing to embrace. Coghlans April 14,
2005 story on Afghanistans capital Kabul described a city under
threat from a new danger: the free market economics of Kabul's
post-war boom now seem a more potent enemy than rockets and bombs.
The story focused on the horrors of a housing boom
that has seen the price of real estate soar to levels comparable
with Western cities. Rather than celebrate this influx of wealth
and opportunity to the formerly war-torn nation, Coghlan dwelled on
how a local charity is being forced to moved. Afghanistan's
internationally renowned charity for street children, Aschiana,
survived the Afghan wars of the 1990s and the Taleban era.
According to the article, the owner of land sold the
land, worth around $5 million, so a five-star hotel could be built
on the site.
The article went on to paint a glowing picture of the
charity that suddenly found itself homeless. Though the story
demonized a small class of wealthy Afghan entrepreneurs who were
some of the prime beneficiaries of the housing boom, Coghlan never
bothered to interview any of them. In fact, he didnt even get the
property owners side of the story and never mentioned how many jobs
have been created by the boom and how many people and families would
benefit from the construction and operation of the hotel.
The whole problem was described as the fault of free
markets and a landowner who dared to sell land for $5 million when
he was only making $18,000 a year on it.
The article concluded with a comment from Engineer
Mohammed Yousef, the charitys founder, who complained about how the
international community was helping his nation. In reality,
Afghanistan is showing itself to be both a victory for democracy and
free markets. Unfortunately, the BBCs one-sided story didnt see
notice.
