Technically, it isn't something that was granted to them but something they earned by placing themselves in the top 6 of associate nations. They played every other similar associate nation to do so. These rules were made well before Afghanistan was a contender for such a slot, no bars were lowered for them and no strings were pulled.
All true. Afghanistan earned their place fair and square.
It depends. A one off tournament is hardly the best way to gauge progress. I can understand an event being a qualifyer for the WC as it is one event to qualify for another (ignoring the fact that the next World Cup is years away). That part of the event makes sense.
It might be asking too much of amateur teams to turn out every year to prove themselves? Or even to be touring constantly to have more continuous feedback.
No there isn't. Instead of providing almost a useless amount of funding to the top six, they need to pick maybe two (picking the countries who have done well but also have the interest, infrastructure and administration) and really fund their infrastructure, domestic system, make sure they have a contigent of professionals playing.
No on the ODI status, but a case could be made for continued funding. What a Harbhajan or a Duminy collects from IPL for 12 games might fund an entire associate team (for Afghanistan, including full salaries for 20 people) for 12 months.
How much is the funding involved here? A few million goes a long way, depending on which country we are talking about.
Countries like Afghanistan will always have enough interest because of their proximity with India/Pak, Infrastructure is something they will depend on ICC and on India/Pak, Administration should not be a criteria, because none of the Asian countries have decent administration.
.
