Showing posts with label Foreign Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Foreign Policy. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Karzai's Kabul Bank Scam Excuse --"Created by Foreign Hands"

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (June 13, 2010) — Afghan...Image via WikipediaAs NATO foreign ministers gathered in Bonn last week to discuss the way forward in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai gave an interview to SPIEGEL about how much international involvement will be required following the 2014 withdrawal and about his rocky partnership with the United States. The interview was conducted by Matthias Gebauer and Christoph Reuter and touched on corruption in Afghanistan, specifically on the Bank of Kabul. Excerpts:

SPIEGEL: In the largest financial scandal of Afghanistan, surrounding the virtually bankrupt Bank of Kabul, your family too would seem to be involved. We have seen a protocol from former central bank head Abdul Qadir Fitrat who, in the presence of your brother, made clear that the bank was little more than a criminal organization and was close to collapse. It provided loans to fictitious companies and straw men. The bank managers invested in huge villas in Dubai. Why did nothing happen for a full year?
Karzai: We called in Fitrat and asked him and said we are hearing that there is something going wrong, but he said no. The Americans never told us about this. The bank didn't tell us.

SPIEGEL: But once the problems became apparent, why did your government prevent an audit of the bank by foreign experts?

Karzai: We believed a certain embassy was trying to create financial trouble for us. We felt the whole bank scam was created by foreign hands.

SPIEGEL: Which embassy?

Karzai: I will not go into details.

This is the same guy who wants $5 billion a year from the United States until 2024.  He must think that's a nice round bargain considering that we are going to spend $6.5 billion a year for the US Mission in Iraq after the military pulls out.






 
 
 

Monday, November 14, 2011

2012 GOP Presidentiables Debate Foreign Policy on TeeVee...Until the #NCIS Rerun

Leroy Jethro GibbsImage via WikipediaThe eight Republican presidential candidates were at the Benjamin Johnson Arena on Nov. 12, 2011 in Spartanburg, S.C. for the CBS News/National Journal commander-in-chief's debate on foreign policy.

Politico was sorry to report that it was the "the worst kind of debate" since "nothing awful happened."

"Rick Perry exhibited no brain freeze (at least no more than usual), Herman Cain did not stumble badly (at least no more than anybody else), Newt Gingrich did not attack the moderators (much) and the audience booed only once (when Ron Paul opposed torture)."

True, true ... no "Oops!" moment there but they still said lots of stuff during the debate. Some quotes below which quite frankly, rocked the world:

Herman Cain on the Arab Spring:
"You have to look at Libya, Egypt, Yemen and all of the revolutions that are going on and how the administration has mishandled them," he said. "As a result, this has gotten totally out of hand."

Mitt Romney on Pakistan:
"Right now, they're comfortable with our using drones to go after the people that are representing the greatest threat." [...] "We have an agreement with the people we need to have an agreement with to be able to use drones to strike at the people that represent a threat,"he said

Jon Huntsman on nation building:
"I say this nation's future is not Afghanistan. This nation's future is not Iraq," Mr. Huntsman said. "I don't want to be nation building in Afghanistan when this nation needs so desperately to be rebuilt."

Jon Huntsman on torture:
“We diminish our standing in the world and the values we project, including liberty, democracy and human rights and open markets, when we torture.”

Rick Perry on foreign aid:
"The foreign aid budget in my administration will start at zero dollars," he said. "Zero dollars. And then we'll have a conversation."

Rick Perry on China:
"Listen, there are some people who made the statement that the 21st century is going to be the century of China and that, you know, we've had our time in the sunshine. I don't believe that. I don't believe that at all. As a matter of fact, you think back to the 1980s, and we faced a similar type of a situation with Russia. And Ronald Reagan said that Russia would end up on the ash heap of history, and he was right. I happen to think that the communist Chinese government will end up on the ash heap of history if they do not change their virtues. It is important for a country to have virtues, virtues of honesty. And this whole issue of allowing cybersecurity to go on, we need to use all of our resources. The private sector working along with our government to really-- standing up to cyber-command in 2010 was a good start on that. But fighting this cyberwar I would suggest is one of the great issues that will face the next president of the united states and we must win."

Ron Paul on Iran:
"I'm afraid what's going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq."
Ron Paul on the rule of law:
"So what are we doing here to accept this idea that our president, and this lawlessness, to pursue? And that-- we some day will be subject to those same courts. So no, you don't. You want to live within-- in the law and obey the law. Because-- otherwise, it's going to be very bad for all-- all of us. And-- this whole idea that-- now we can be assassinated by somebody that we don't even like to run our medical care, and giving this power to the president to be the prosecutor, the executor, the judge and the jury, we better look at that carefully before you automatically endorse something like that."

Michele Bachmann on waterboarding and the CIA:
“If I were president, I would use waterboarding,” she promised. “Barack Obama is letting the ACLU run the CIA!”

Newt Gingrich on GOP presidentiables' qualifications:
“We’re here tonight to talk to the American people about why every single one of us is better than Barack Obama."
Newt Gingrich on Syria's Assad:
"Assad, who is our enemy, and is an ally and-- of-- of-- of Iran, has had amazingly soft treatment by our State Department, as though they are afraid to make him feel bad. I would actively-- approve-- taking those steps would which-- defeat his regime, which would probably be mostly covert. I don't-- I don't think you need a no-fly zone. I think there are a number of steps you could take. And I think he would fall very rapidly."

Oh, Cain and Bachmann said that they would favor waterboarding as an interrogation technique because well, it works. Period.

Also, there was that item where Romney and Gingrich agreed we'd go to war to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

Perhaps their next debate should be held at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland?

If they talked about la guerra next door, in the Estados Unidos Mexicanos,we did not hear it.  A long list of people killed right there on our doorsteps.  How about the Canada-U.S. Keystone XL oil pipeline, that's also next door, no? Did not hear that either.  Huntsman  and Perry did get asked about the European debt crisis, towards the end of the debate. Huntsman cited two problems for us, Perry says let the French and the German deal with that.  Perhaps Europe's too boring because it's across the pond never mind that it's our top trading partner?

In any case, CBS recognized that a 90-minute debate on foreign policy is suffering, at least in this election cycle, from under-excitement.  Would anyone actually get a 3 a.m. phone call about job creation, because that's what it will come down to?  But this is about the commander-in-chief's quick reaction to those tricky foreign policy puzzles.  Exactly! So important that the last half-hour of the debate was streamed online, while the network returned to its regular programming, a rerun of "NCIS" with Leroy Jethro Gibbs! Um, Gibbs as write-in candidate?



Wednesday, November 2, 2011

USA vs. Most of the World: Now Deadbeat at UNESCO and Very Concerned About It

Flag of the United Nations Educational, Scient...Image via WikipediaWaPo reports that UNESCO voted Monday to admit Palestine into the organization as its newest member, and the United States promptly responded by cutting off funding for the agency.

Acting under a legal requirement to cut U.S. funds to any U.N. agency that recognizes a Palestinian state, the State Department on Monday announced that the United States has stopped funding the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization because of the vote. Department spokesman Victoria Nuland told reporters that the Obama administration would not make a planned $60 million payment to the agency due this month.
[...]
The UNESCO membership bid, which required approval by two-thirds of the agency’s General Conference, passed by a vote of 107 to 14, with 52 abstentions.

Huge cheers erupted in the Paris meeting hall when the Palestinian membership was approved, news agencies reported. France cast a surprise yes vote, drawing applause from the delegates. The United States, Israel, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany were among those voting no.
The State Department Spokesperson ran around, around and around the room with this one and not just on UNESCO, but also WIPO. Excerpts below:
QUESTION: Quite apart from the congressional lot, you’re opposed to the Palestinians having membership in the World Intellectual Property Organization?
MS. NULAND: We are.
QUESTION: You are?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Because the Palestinians don’t have any intellectual property, or because their intellectual property, because they’re not a state, is somehow less protectable or less worthy of protection?
MS. NULAND: Because this is a cascade effect of the decision in the UNESCO which we consider --
QUESTION: What does protecting intellectual property have to do – anything to do with statehood?
MS. NULAND: It has to do with the declaration of state status in UNESCO, which cascades into WIPO, that we are opposed to.
QUESTION: I used to think that this government, my government, had some intellect itself, but this just seems ridiculous. You are going to oppose them in some kind of international weather organization as well? The Civil Aviation Organization?
MS. NULAND: Our position on this with regard to all the UN agencies is the same.
QUESTION: You can – you think that there is somewhere – somewhere in this building that someone can draw a intellectually responsible and acceptable argument that membership in the World Intellectual Property Organization should not be granted to the Palestinians because they are not a state, because their intellectual property, because they’re not a state, is somehow less deserving of protection than anyone else’s, including the Syrians, including whoever else?
MS. NULAND: Matt, the move here is not with regard to the aspiration that we all have for the Palestinians to have access to and full rights of all of these UN organizations. The concern here is trying to shortcut the process of statehood, trying to establish statehood through the back door --
QUESTION: But see, that’s the --
MS. NULAND: Can I finish my point, please?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. NULAND: Thank you. Rather than establishing true statehood the way it has to be done, which is in direct negotiations with their neighbor. And from that can flow all of the benefits of these organizations.
QUESTION: But not even the Palestinians themselves say that this is a way to statehood. They --
MS. NULAND: Well, but what has been granted here --
QUESTION: They know that this is not – this does not mean statehood.
MS. NULAND: What has been granted here in UNESCO is Palestinian membership and statehood status. That’s what’s of concern.
QUESTION: I’m sorry, and the Palestinian vote on that?
MS. NULAND: Excuse me?
QUESTION: The Palestinians didn’t vote for this. A hundred and seven other countries, including some of your best friends, voted for this. The Palestinians didn’t vote for it; they just simply put it up for – they put it up for a vote. They didn’t have a vote on this.
MS. NULAND: This began --
QUESTION: You lost.
MS. NULAND: Matt --
QUESTION: Why --
MS. NULAND: Are you asking me a question that you’d like me to answer, or are you just going to have an argument with me today?
QUESTION: No, no. I’m – I want to know why you think, and everyone else – which is a position that everyone else disagrees with, that this is somehow – that this hurts the peace process or hurts the ability of the Palestinians to get a state, short of just upsetting the Israelis?
MS. NULAND: Start with the premise this process in UNESCO began with a Palestinian petition for membership, which we thought was ill-advised and ill-considered, and which we so said to the Palestinians at the time. So the Palestinians made a move here that we didn’t think was conducive to the environment for the talks or conducive to getting us back to the table. That is our concern. We want to get the Palestinians their state. It’s only going to happen if we can get these parties back to the table. We have to create an environment that gets them back to the table, and this is not helpful.
QUESTION: Okay. But you accept that 107 countries disagreed with you.
MS. NULAND: A hundred and seven countries made their own decision. We disagree with them.
QUESTION: Right. Exactly. So, I mean, isn’t it maybe – doesn’t that tell you anything, that if you add in the abstentions, which included the Brits, your special ally, who abstained, then 159 countries disagreed with you?
This is not the end of the story.  The Cable reported that the Obama administration is required by existing U.S. law to cut off funding for any international organization that grants the Palestinians full membership.
Membership in UNESCO also grants the Palestinians membership in the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). The United States is not a member of UNIDO, but will be forced to stop contributing to WIPO.
But that's only the tip of the iceberg. The Palestinians could seek membership in more prominent international organizations, which could result in the United States defunding or even withdrawing from institutions such as the World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The AP reported today that the Palestinian Authority was examining seeking membership in 16 more U.N. organizations.
Read more here.

So, it is possible to see the US defund 16 U.N. organizations in the foreseeable future. And that is going to enhance U.S. positions from A-Z, how?



Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Russian Ambassador to Kabul advices US not to pull out of Afghanistan precipitously but will never send troops over there (again)

Map of Afghanistan with flag.Image via WikipediaThe Russian Ambassador to Afghanistan, Andrey Avetisyan was interviewed by Morning Edition co-host Renee Montagne. Apparently, Ambassador  Avetisyan was a young diplomat in Kabul during the Soviet Union's military occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980's.

He has some advice for the United States -- to "not to pull out of Afghanistan precipitously." In the same interview, he  also says that "Russia prefers to learn from the mistakes of the past and we will never send our troops to Afghanistan."

Asked about the similarities between the current war in Afghanistan with the Soviet War in the 1980's, this is what the ambassador says:

Avetisyan: Similarities [are] those who decided to go into Afghanistan to fight terrorism hoped for several months — exactly like the Soviet Union, which didn't want to be involved here for so many years. But they were dragged deeper and deeper into this, and in a couple of years' time found themselves in the midst of internal conflict. So, fighting in Afghanistan is not what you think it's going to be. So, what is the end to this? Just withdraw? I think premature withdrawal now will bring a lot of problems, new internal war, new civil war to Afghanistan. It is a very dangerous thing just to put yourself a date, artificially calculated, and then withdraw. I don't think today the circumstances are right for withdrawal of the international forces and transition of responsibility for the security to the Afghan security forces. They're not yet ready.
The current war in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001. It'll be 10 years next month, and the Afghan security forces are "not yet ready." From 2011-2021, the Afghan security forces will be slightly ready.  From 2021-2031, the Afghan security forces will be slightly more ready. From 2031-2041, the Afghan security forces will be more or less ready. From 2041-2051, the Afghan security forces will be so-so ready. From 2051-2061, the Afghan security forces will be ready if only its troops desertion rate stops spiking up.

If we stop paying attention, this 10-year war can slowly just go on and on and on like a war to nowhere (the PR folks would say it's the journey not the destination).  Our children's children's children will be fighting this forever war as officials like Ambassador Avetisyan continues to give us their most kind advice to stay until the Afghans are ready. Or as our very own ambassador to Kabul scares us into staying or risk more attacks.  I'm sorry, drinking that Kool-Aid is no longer my cup of tea.


Montagne points out that after the Soviet Union withdrew its troops in the late '80s, in '89, it might have stayed committed to Afghanistan in terms of development and helping with development, but it was actually unable to, because the Soviet Union, pretty shortly after that, broke apart.  Ambassador Avetisyan's response:
Absolutely. The Soviet Union made a huge mistake sending troops to Afghanistan, and the Soviet Union paid a huge price for this mistake. Russia prefers to learn from the mistakes of the past and we will never send our troops to Afghanistan.

Apart from this, we are ready and already cooperating with Afghanistan on everything. We support the army and police, we support international coalition here, because we share the goals of fighting against terrorism and international crime. For us, drugs are even more important. Every year about 30,000 Russians die from Afghan heroin. Russia can't be involved in Afghanistan from a distance because we are members of the region. We are here. We can't go anywhere like many countries involved now can.

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Project Unsustainable: Why the Afghan National Security Forces Need to be On Reality Teevee Now

Well, just about everything is reality teevee now, why not our reconstruction project centered on the Afghan National Security Forces?  The United States and donor countries are paying for it and it's kind of like the hollywoody equivalent of army and police training. There are well meaning good guys, and bad meaning bad guys, insurmountable challenges, military toys, guys learning to shoot straight, contractor reps on near heart attacks, and gazillions of money floating around for this or that. There's gotta be drama in all that, don't ya think?

And the best part is, this reality show may have better longevity prospects as teevee show goes, because hey, we might actually be in Afghanistan beyond 2014 (when we're supposed to leave).  If rumors are true that negotiations are underway for the United States to stay in Afghanistan until 2024, that would fit perfectly with the IMF's prediction that the Afghan government will be incapable of paying ANSF costs until at least 2023.

Afghanistan is in fact, playing a double game to suit its interest -- badmouthing the United States when it suits it's need and negotiating behind the lime lights to get the United States to stay to protect its interest.   If we're asked to stay beyond 2014, don't mistake it for true love; we have the juice, that's all (even if that juice was bought on credit); we're like the deep pocket sugar person that the dysfunctional individual with a sweet habit can't live with and can't live without - a very messy relationship.

DynCorp trainer with Afghan National Police recruits.
(U.S.Air Force photo cited by CWC)
In any case, the Commission on Wartime Contracting (CWC) cited Project Unsustainable above as a formidable example of potential waste in the U.S.-funded contracting for training of, and facilities construction for, the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), comprising the Army, Border Police, and National Police. Excerpt below:
Between FY 2006 and FY 2011, Congress appropriated nearly $39 billion to set up and maintain the ANSF; the fiscal year 2012 budget request would add almost $13 billion to that total. Nearly half of the FY 2012 request—over $5 billion—would go toward clothing, equipping, and paying the ANSF.22

Prospects for the Afghan government’s sustaining the ANSF are dubious. The entire country’s gross domestic product (GDP) for FY 2011 is about $16 billion at the official exchange rate, and the national government’s domestic revenues are about $2 billion.23 The Afghan Ministry of Finance budget proposal for 2011-2012 indicates that given the increased security costs from the increase in size of the ANSF, the Afghan government is expected to continue to depend on donor grants for up to 30% of its operating budget.24

The outlook for sustaining the Afghan army and national police is complicated by several factors:

▪▪The ANSF, currently numbering about 305,000 personnel, is growing toward a newly authorized strength of 352,000, which will increase sustainment costs.

▪▪The Commission has received a preliminary U.S. military estimate of ANSF sustainment costs for just the period 2014-2017 in the neighborhood of $30 billion.

▪▪The International Monetary Fund has concluded that the Afghan government will be incapable of paying ANSF costs until at least 2023.25

▪▪Donor-community support depends upon unpredictable political decisions that may be heavily influenced by severe fiscal pressure on most developed countries’ budgets.

In a similar vein, the Acting Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction told the Commission, “The Government of Afghanistan has never had the financial resources to sustain ANP [Afghan National Police] salaries at either the current or projected levels.”

Besides spending billions on contracts to train, clothe, and equip the ANSF, the United States has also committed $11.4 billion since 2005 to build bases, police stations, border outposts, and other facilities for the ANSF. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded two contracts in 2010 for ITT Corporation to provide $800 million in operation-and-maintenance services for 663 ANSF facilities over a five-year period.

The Afghan government has already indicated that it cannot pay such costs from its resources.29 The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction told the Commission at its January 24, 2011, construction hearing that “the entire $11.4 billion [in construction spending] is at risk,” and “both contracts are expected to exhaust their funding well before [the end of ] their five-year performance period.”30

Anyway, if we end up spending the next 12-13 years in Afghanistan training its armed forces, I only have one request.  Please, please, please -- can we please have this on teevee 24/7, 365 days a year so we can watch this project continue to unfold in real time?  And if SIGAR needs to make arrests, can we do that with cameras rolling, too? Because why not?

Pardon me? Why do we need to see this 24/7, 365 days until the 2024 season? Um, silly -- so we can see on teevee just how stoopid we've all been in allowing a sugar old baby with a bad habit to play us this well.

Michele Bachmann's Soviet Union must be laughing its head off right now.




Related posts:
On to 2024: Our Pretend 51st State of Afghanistan -- Not/Not a Laughing Matter | Aug 22, 2011

Cops Kabul Edition: Building Afghanistan's National Police at $1.26 Billion | Jul 29, 2011

US Mission Afghanistan: Ambassador Crocker returns, assures everyone "There will be no rush for the exits..." and that's okay since our soldiers for 2023 will start kindergarten this fall | Tuesday, July 26, 2011 |

$6 Billion Later, Afghan Cops Aren't Ready to Serve | Diplopundit | Mar 22, 2010

Weapons Accountability in Afghanistan | Diplopundit | Feb 16, 2009




Thursday, August 18, 2011

State Dept on French-Vietnamese Blogger Currently on Trial in Vietnam -- Bonus Entry, the "Unless" Clause

This was in response to a taken question in the Office of the Spokesperson of the State Department on August 10, 2011:

Question: Do you have a comment about the French-Vietnamese lecturer and blogger who is currently on trial in Vietnam?

Answer: We are dismayed by Vietnam’s conviction of French-Vietnamese blogger Pham Minh Hoang to three years in prison and three years under house arrest. No individual should be prosecuted for exercising the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Vietnam’s prosecution of individuals for expressing their views contradicts the government’s commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Human rights are and will remain a key component of our relationship with Vietnam.

File away in the press clippings folder; might be useful as Exhibit A when the "Tigers" over at the State Department run after you and your blog.   

Of course, it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that the official response did not say anything about the "unless" clause.  What's the "unless" clause?  It's the "no individual should be prosecuted for exercising the right to freedom of opinion and expression" .... unless (INSERT reason here).

The following is a non-exhaustive list of possible reasons, in no particular order: 

No individual should be prosecuted for exercising the right to freedom of opinion and expression ....

---- unless your unofficial mockery written during off hours require cause your State Department bosses to take Xanax.

---- unless your blog tell stories about the leadership and management misimpressions of your boss.

---- unless your blog tell stories about the impression management strategy of your bosses ailing with promotiontitis.

---- unless you write about funny things reported in the media that talks about odd strange foreign policy misadventures and expense.

---- unless you write about a less than perfect life and private pains in your foreign adventures because didn't you know that a shrink is always better than a blog?

--- unless you write about countries with diplomatic relations with the United States.

Not sure the "unless" clause covers Bhutan and Taiwan, but it should should cover Cuba, Iran and North Korea. But before you make fun of Kim Jong Il's hairdo, be sure to check with the North Korea desk for blanket permission to blog or tweet about the Korean Peninsula's hair model of the century.

More later ...

(This entry was originally posted on 8/17/2011; updated with "unless" clause)





Tuesday, July 26, 2011

US Mission Afghanistan: Ambassador Crocker returns, assures everyone "There will be no rush for the exits..." and that's okay since our soldiers for 2023 will start kindergarten this fall

On July 25, Ambassador Ryan Crocker was officially sworn in at the U.S. Embassy Kabul as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan. He was sworn in by "someone rather more junior than the Secretary of State," by an FSO named Zane (so junior, no last name needed) who "represents the future of America’s Foreign Service" according to the transcript of the ambassador's remarks. 

Created with Admarket's flickrSLiDR.
Photos from US Embassy Kabul/Flickr

Ambassador Crocker also presented his diplomatic credentials to Afghan President Hamid Karzai at a ceremony at the Presidential Palace on the same day.  He arrived in Afghanistan on July 24.

Created with Admarket's flickrSLiDR.
Photos from US Embassy Kabul/Flickr


Remarks
by Ambassador Ryan Crocker at Swearing-in Ceremony
July 25, 2011 (excerpts)
We are at a time of transition in Afghanistan.  It is a time for us to step back and for the Afghans to step forward, as they are doing.  There can be no more clearer evidence than in last week’s successful security transition.  This is an indicator of the progress that Afghanistan has achieved in recent years. 

However, I think all of us – Americans, coalition partners, the international community, and the Afghan leadership – know that we must proceed carefully. There will be no rush for the exits.  The way we do this in the months ahead will have consequences far beyond Afghanistan and far into the future. 

Frankly, we left the wrong way in the early 1990’s, and we all know the history of those decisions:  the civil war, the rise of the Taliban, sanctuary for Al Qaida, and 9/11.  So how we proceed as partners in support of Afghanistan is critical.   We have to think this through carefully, we have to consult with the Afghan government, and the coming year will be critical in setting the right glide path.

Those of us in the international community face challenges at home as well.  Our people are tired of military involvements, and the expense of blood and treasure. But my answer to that, again, is to remind those who say we should be done of the incalculable long-term effects and costs of getting it wrong.  We owe nothing less to the next generation of Afghans, Americans, and others not to repeat the mistakes of 20 years ago.

Despite the complexity of the issues, the process of transition over the next few years is not only clear, it is underway.


President Karzai must be having a good day.  Job security assured for many more years to come since there will be "no rush for the exits."  And if the "transition" is timed well, I bet we could make that transition lasts until 2050. Just visiting, of course.

The soldiers who will fight the war in Afghanistan and elsewhere in 2023 and beyond will be entering kindergarten this fall.      


updated @12:01 pm EST



UK's Rory Stewart: Time to end the war in Afghanistan

British MP Rory Stewart walked across Afghanistan after 9/11, talking with citizens and warlords alike. Now, a decade later, he asks: Why are Western and coalition forces still fighting there?


Via TED:

Now the member of British Parliament for Penrith and the Border, in rural northwest England, Rory Stewart has led a fascinatingly broad life of public service. He joined the Foreign Office after school, then left to begin a years-long series of walks across the Muslim world. In 2002, his extraordinary walk across post-9/11 Afghanistan resulted in his first book, The Places in Between. After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, he served as a Deputy Governorate Co-Ordinator in Southern Iraq for the coalition forces, and later founded a charity in Kabul.

To secure his Conservative seat in Parliament, he went on a walking tour of Penrith, covering the entire county as he talked to voters. In 2008, Esquire called him one of the 75 most influential people of the 21st century.

He says: "The world isn't one way or another. Things can be changed very, very rapidly by someone with sufficient confidence, sufficient knowledge and sufficient authority."

"Stewart has long known that diplomacy of the deed is the only kind that matters." - Parag Khana

Rory Stewart was born in Hong Kong and grew up in Malaysia. He served briefly as an officer in the British Army (the Black Watch), studied history and philosophy at Balliol College, Oxford and then joined the British Diplomatic Service. He worked in the British Embassy in Indonesia and then, in the wake of the Kosovo campaign, as the British Representative in Montenegro. In 2000 he took two years off and began walking from Turkey to Bangladesh. He covered 6000 miles on foot alone across Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Nepal -- a journey described in The Places in Between.
In 2003, he became the coalition Deputy Governor of Maysan and Dhi Qar -- two provinces in the Marsh Arab region of Southern Iraq. He has written for a range of publications including the New York Times Magazine, the London Review of Books, the Sunday Times, the Guardian, the Financial Times and Granta. In 2004, he was awarded the Order of the British Empire and became a Fellow of the Carr Centre at Harvard University.

He is also the author of The Prince of the Marshes And Other Occupational Hazards of a Year in Iraq.





Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Gaza Flotilla 2011: Set to Sail with Former U.S. Diplomat Ann Wright, Retired U.S. Ambassador Samuel Hart, Alice Walker and More

Freedom Flotilla incident. 31 may 2010. Cartog...Image via Wikipedia
An international flotilla is set to sail for Gaza to challenge Israel's naval blockade of the Palestinian territory. Last year, lives were lost during a confrontation at sea.

This year, a US vessel named the Audacity of Hope will join the flotilla of some ten ships with over 30 Americans and activists from other countries.  Former U.S. diplomat Ann Wright is an organizer of the U.S. Boat to Gaza. Ann is a retired U.S. Army Colonel and a former US diplomat who served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. In 2003 she resigned in opposition to the Iraq war.

Jacksonville.com also reports that Samuel Hart, a Jacksonville resident and former U.S. ambassador to Ecuador with 27 years  of service as a career diplomat is also joining the Gaza flotilla. The report did not indicate which vessel he will be on:

By the time the civil rights movement began making significant strides, Hart had left Mississippi, first to serve as an Army officer, then to join the diplomatic corps in 1958.

Which is one of the reasons the retired ambassador decided at age 77 to participate in the upcoming Freedom Flotilla II, which will attempt to carry humanitarian aid past an Israeli blockade to 1.5 million residents of Gaza.

"I wasn't at Selma," said Hart, a Jacksonville resident since 1994. "I wasn't at the March on Washington. ... I see great similarities between this and the civil rights movement. I am pleased to be a part of it."
Read more at Jacksonville.com:


But before the flotilla even left port, it is once more big in the news.

On June 24, Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokesperson released the following statement on the Gaza   "Anniversary" Flotilla:
Last month marked the one-year anniversary of the confrontation between Israeli forces and activists when a flotilla attempted to break Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza on May 31, 2010. The United States deeply regrets the tragic loss of life and injuries suffered among those involved in that incident aboard the Gaza bound ships.

We are concerned that a number of groups are organizing a one year “anniversary” flotilla to commemorate the incident by sailing from various European ports to Gaza in the near future. Groups that seek to break Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza are taking irresponsible and provocative actions that risk the safety of their passengers. Established and efficient mechanisms exist to transfer humanitarian assistance to Gaza.
[...]
We underscore that delivering or attempting or conspiring to deliver material support or other resources to or for the benefit of a designated foreign terrorist organization, such as Hamas, could violate U.S. civil and criminal statutes and could lead to fines and incarceration.

Read the whole thing here:


During the Daily Press Brief on June 27, the journalists chased the spokesperson around the room:
QUESTION: The – some of the ships that will make up this flotilla that you’re so – not enthusiastic about have left already, heading for points close to Gaza, if not Gaza itself. The Israelis over the weekend first warned journalists and then were rescinded this warning that if they got on any of these ships that they could be subject to criminal penalties, deportation, 10-year ban from the country.

I’m wondering if there was any contact between the U.S. and Israel about that, and whether the warning that you put out last week – or, not the Travel Warning, per se, but the – your statement in which you warned Americans that they might be violating U.S. law if they participated, did that apply to journalists?

MS. NULAND: First, with regard to the Government of Israel’s decision, our understanding from press reporting but also from our own contacts was that that first announcement was made at a relatively low level, and when senior Israelis became involved, the decision was amended, as you saw.

The U.S. warnings to U.S. citizens apply to all U.S. citizens. We are concerned about any of our citizens involved in a situation that could be provocative, that could be dangerous. That said, freedom of the press; journalists make their own decision, but we have made clear that we are concerned about this situation.

QUESTION: But a journalist who is on one of these boats, could they be subject to laws that bar – the law specifically, the legislation, the laws that you mentioned in your statement which have to do with material support for Hamas?

MS. NULAND: I’m not aware of legal distinctions that we would make between journalists and other citizens, but I can double-check whether there’s a distinction to be made there. I think our concern was that this was a dangerous situation for any American to be involved in.
[...]
QUESTION: Yes, ma’am. To the best of your knowledge, has there ever been a ship caught smuggling arms on these aid ships? Has there been any ship that was caught with arms being smuggled to Gaza?

MS. NULAND: Our understanding is that Israel has been the victim of arms smuggled illegally at sea and --

QUESTION: Right. But not these aid ships? Are you aware of any of these aid ships used to smuggle arms?

MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to precisely which kind of ships arms have been found on, but one of the reasons for the Israeli concern is that they have been victims of arms smuggled at sea.


The board of The Foreign Press Association was not at all happy about the threats by Israel on journalists covering the flotilla and released this statement of 26th June, 2011:
"The government’s threat to punish journalists covering the Gaza flotilla sends a chilling message to the international media and raises serious questions about Israel’s commitment to freedom of the press. Journalists covering a legitimate news event should be allowed to do their jobs without threats and intimidation. We urge the government to reverse its decision immediately."

After Israel reversed its decision the board released another statement on June 27:
The Foreign Press Association welcomes the prime minister’s decision to drop plans to deport and ban journalists covering the Gaza flotilla. We are pleased to see that Israel has recognized the value of allowing reporters to cover an important news event, and understands that journalists should be treated differently from political activists. We urge the government to continue to do its utmost to promote freedom of the press as core values of a democratic society. -  The Foreign Press Association , 27th June 2011

Bloomberg reports that two members of Congress, Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Nita Lowey (D-NY) said U.S. citizens who join a flotilla planning to break Israel’s embargo of the Gaza Strip should face prosecution.

Probably not surprising to Maureen Murphy who writes in Al Jazeera:
I am a Palestine solidarity activist in the US, and one of 23 US citizens who have been issued with a subpoena to appear before a federal grand jury as part of what the government has said is an investigation into violations of the laws banning material support to foreign "terrorist organisations".

None of us have given money or weapons to any group on the State Department's foreign terrorist organisation list. But what many of us have done is participate in or help organise educational trips to meet with Palestinians and Colombians resisting the US-funded military regimes they live under.
[...]
Travel for such purposes should be protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. But a year ago the US Supreme Court decided in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project to dramatically expand the government's definition of what constitutes material support for a foreign terrorist organisation.

Now the government considers travel to places like the West Bank and Colombia to be a predicate or justification for opening up an investigation and issuing search warrants to raid activists' homes and seize their belongings. Political speech if made in a "coordinated way" can be construed as material support.

JTA reports that "commandos from the Israeli Navy's elite Shayetet 13 unit have spent weeks preparing to stop the flotilla from reaching Gaza, including practicing new ways to quickly board the ships' upper decks and how to use water cannons and other non-lethal riot control methods."

And because this is 2011, the flotilla journey will most certainly be tweeted, live-blogged, and may even be streamed live as it unfolds ....



Sunday, June 19, 2011

US Mission Afghanistan: Hamid Karzai, You've Been Warned Dude - Stop Calling US Occupiers; and Yes, This Blog Supports Reconstruction at Home. Now. Not in 2014

The outgoing US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry gave a speech at Herat University on June 19, on the Future of U.S./Afghan Relations. Here is the link to the lengthy official speech.

Ambassador Eikenberry at Herat University
Photo from US Embassy Kabul

And below is his addendum speech at the same event - spoken from the heart:
I would like to add, to my prepared remarks, a few additional words spoken from my heart as I, together with my wife, soon complete my tenure as ambassador.  I have altogether served in your country three times and have lived here in Afghanistan for over five years starting in 2002.

I believe in this mission and the need for us to prevail against terrorism.  I also believe in the goodness of the Afghan people.  Having travelled continuously throughout your country – all 34 provinces where I have reached out to Afghan brothers and sisters from all walks of life – I know of where I speak through firsthand experience.

At the same time, I believe in the goodness of my own people – the American people.

And – as we prepare to return home to my family after my most recent two years here – I must tell you that I find occasional comments from some of your leaders hurtful and inappropriate.

When Americans, who are serving in your country at great cost – in terms of lives and treasure – hear themselves compared with occupiers, told that they are only here to advance their own interest, and likened to the brutal enemies of the Afghan people … they are filled with confusion and grow weary of our effort here.  Mothers and fathers of fallen soldiers, spouses of soldiers who have lost arms and legs, children of those who lost their lives in your country – they ask themselves about the meaning of their loved one’s sacrifice.

When I hear some of your leaders call us occupiers, I cannot look at these mourning parents, spouses, and children in the eye and give them a comforting reply.

We came here in 2001 to defeat international terrorism and help lift the dark veil of over 20 years of conflict from the Afghan people.  Together with you, we have accomplished so much.    Of course, over the course of our time here, our learning curve has been steep.  That is because Afghanistan’s political, social, and economic situation is complex, we do not speak your language and are far from home.  But – in spite of our mistakes – we are a good people whose aim is to help improve our mutual security by strengthening your government, army and police, and economy.  And we know that there have been many accomplishments.

We have built schools and clinics; trained and equipped your army, police, and NDS and fought and sacrificed with them battling the enemy of your state; we have constructed roads and power stations; trained midwives, engineers, and journalists; offered scholarships to my country; helped organize and advise your counter-narcotics police, judicial security units, and elite Major Crimes Task Force; improved your Customs Service; helped facilitate the Afghan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement; renovated the Herat Citadel and many historical sites in Afghanistan; installed a world class Air Traffic Control radar at Kabul International Airport; invested hundreds of millions of dollars in bettering your agriculture system; helped renovate the Kabul museum; supported the revival of music, sports, and culture in your country; constructed roads –even while being attacked by insurgents.  I could go on, but will stop here.

Yet, when we hear ourselves being called occupiers and worse, our pride is offended and we begin to lose our inspiration to carry on.  Let me be clear – America has never sought to occupy any nation in the world.  Nor do we seek to do so here.  In fact, we serve here as friends.  At the point your leaders believe that we are doing more harm than good, when we reach a point that we feel our soldiers and civilians are being asked to sacrifice without a just cause, and our generous aid programs dismissed as totally ineffective and the source of all corruption . . . especially at a time our economy is suffering and our needs are not being met, the American people will ask for our forces to come home.

I would ask, as the outgoing Ambassador, that your leaders please bear this in mind when they speak of my nation, my armed forces, and my people, as well as those others who also are making contributions to and sacrifices for your country.

Thank you.

The "America has never sought to occupy any nation in the world," is good to hear but not quite right, is it? Nonetheless, a more interesting speech than the prepared speech, don't you think? The addendum need to be said is all and probably not surprising that he said it at the end of his tour.

The only thing missing, and something that Ambassador Ekenberry was too diplomatic to add but we in this blog are not too polite to point out ... Afghanistan's "leaders" often do not survive very well the departure of their "protecting" powers.

I hope Mr. Karzai has a Plan B when he does not have the United States to kick around anymore or blame for all that's wrong in his country. 

Ambassador Eikenberry says that the "American people will ask for our forces to come home."

He is not/not kidding.

The USA Today/Gallup May 5-8, 2011 finds 59% of Americans saying the U.S. "has accomplished its mission" and "should bring its troops home," while 36% say the U.S. "still has important work to do in Afghanistan and should maintain its troops there."

On June 15, the Dow Jones Newswires reports that 27 senators call for a sizable troop withdrawal from Afghanistan:
"War weariness is breaking out across the U.S. Capitol, as the liberal wing of the Obama administration's base joined with Tea Party conservatives on Wednesday to call for a significant reduction of troops in Afghanistan -- including combat forces."
Last Friday,  apparently for the first time since the Vietnam War,  the United States Conference of Mayors has also called for an end to military engagement: "The nation's mayors, led by Conference President and Burnsville, MN Mayor Elizabeth Kautz, will announce the introduction of a resolution, calling to end the Afghanistan War and re-direct spending for job creation this Friday, the beginning of their four-day annual meeting in Baltimore. On Monday, the final day of the meeting, the U.S. Conference of Mayors will vote on the Afghanistan resolution, as well as release an employment report for 363 metro areas, published in conjunction with Global Insight."

We can get out of Afghanistan, yes we can.

And what if the bad guys find a new cave over there and attack us again? Well, there is always SEAL Team 6.

But that's not really what's keeping us awake at night, is it?

I think the larger question for us is -- do we spend our limited funds on Afghanistan to ensure that the bad guys (100 of them) cannot harm us again in the future? Or do we spend that money here, now and ensure that our country has a future?  

Just an example on what that bleak future looks like.  At Whitney Elementary School in Las Vegas—an estimated 85 percent of the students are either "homeless or on the brink." And that's just one of the many challenges facing Nevada's Clark County Public Schools, the nation’s fifth-largest school district, where according to Scholastic, 46 percent of students qualify for free or reduced-price meals and the number of homeless children continues to soar.

CBS recently did a piece on this here.

Whitney Elementary School, USA.  How is it that we are re/building schools and whatever and pouring billions of dollars over there, and right here in Nevada, in the 36th state in the union this is happening? And Nevada is far from alone.   

I think we need to face this painful fact. 

We need reconstruction to begin here at home. How about  PRT-Nevada or PRT Michigan?

Like now.

Not in 2014. 

And Mr. Karzai should proceed with his Plan B, if he has one.









Thursday, April 14, 2011

Funding Smart Power Maybe Smart, But What About My Re-election?

Joseph S. Nye Jr., professor at Harvard and author of The Future of Power writes Foreign Policy: Cutting From Foreign Aid Doesn't Help.  Excerpt below:
[...] On Tuesday, the axe fell: The State Department and foreign operations budget was slashed by $8.5 billion — a pittance when compared to military spending, but one that could put a serious dent in the United States' ability to positively influence events abroad.
[...]
Now, in the name of an illusory contribution to deficit reduction (when you're talking about deficits in the trillions, $38 billion in savings is a drop in the bucket), those efforts have been set back. Polls consistently show a popular misconception that aid is a significant part of the U.S. federal budget, when in fact it amounts to less than 1 percent. Thus, congressional cuts to aid in the name of deficit reduction are an easy vote, but a cheap shot.
[...]
In 2007, Richard Armitage and I co-chaired a bipartisan Smart Power Commission of members of Congress, former ambassadors, retired military officers, and heads of non-profit organizations at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. We concluded that America's image and influence had declined in recent years and that the United States had to move from exporting fear to inspiring optimism and hope.

The Smart Power Commission was not alone in this conclusion. Even when he was in the George W. Bush administration, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called on Congress to commit more money and effort to soft-power tools including diplomacy, economic assistance, and communications because the military alone cannot defend America's interests around the world.
[...]
The obstacles to integrating America's soft- and hard-power tool kit have deep roots, and the Obama administration is only beginning to overcome them, by creating a second deputy at State, reinvigorating USAID, and working with the Office of Management and Budget. Increasing the size of the Foreign Service, for instance, would cost less than the price of one C-17 transport aircraft, yet there are no good ways to assess such a tradeoff in the current form of budgeting. Now, that progress may be halted.
[...]
Leadership in a global information age is less about being the king of the mountain issuing commands that cascade down a hierarchy than being the person in the center of a circle or network who attracts and persuades others to come help. Both the hard power of coercion and the soft power of attraction and persuasion are crucial to success in such situations. Americans need better to understand both these dimensions of smart power.

Nowhere is this more true than on Capitol Hill. While Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have spoken about the importance of soft power, they do not have to face the American electorate. As a friend in Congress once told me, "You are right about the importance of combining soft power with hard power, but I cannot talk about soft power and hope to get re-elected." The defense budget affects almost all congressional constituencies in the United States; the budgets for State and USAID do not. The result is a foreign policy that rests on a defense giant and a number of pygmy departments. For example, when Gates and Clinton recently agreed to transfer an aid program from the Pentagon to the State Department, the program's budget was cut in half. And now, Foggy Bottom faces cuts across the board.

Congress needs to be serious about deficit reduction, and it also needs to be serious about foreign policy. The events of the past week suggest it is serious about neither.
Read in full here.









Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Obama's Reagan Moment - In Egypt, Ambassador Frank Wisner as Paul Laxalt??

The news that retired Ambassador Frank Wisner was on his way to Egypt could not have been good news for those at the presidential palace in Cairo.

Via MSNBC:

The New York Times reported that former U.S. ambassador to Egypt Frank Wisner arrived in Cairo and delivered Obama's message. The Times said Wisner told Mubarak that Obama was not sending a blunt demand to step aside now, but offering firm counsel that he should make way for a reform process that would culminate in free and fair elections in September for a new Egyptian leader.

The back channel message, authorized directly by Obama, appeared to tip the administration beyond the delicate balancing act it has performed in the last week — resisting calls for Mubarak to step down even as it has called for an “orderly transition” to a more politically open Egypt, the Times said.

Via NYT:
Mr. Wisner, who had been expected to leave Egypt on Tuesday but decided to extend his stay, is among the United States’s most experienced diplomats, and a friend of Mr. Mubarak. His mission was to “keep a conversation going,” according to a close friend of Mr. Wisner.

As a result, this person said, the administration’s first message to the Egyptian leader was not that he had to leave office, but rather that his time in office was quickly coming to a close. Mr. Wisner, who consulted closely with the White House, is expected to be the point person dealing with Mr. Mubarak as the situation evolves, and perhaps as the administration’s message hardens.
In 1986, it took all of 20 days for the Reagan Administration to defriend Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines.



Quick recap:
  • On 11 February in 1986, four days after a fraudulent Philippine election, then President Reagan blamed both sides causing a huge public outcry.
  • By 14 February, Reagan's special ambassador, Philip Habib arrived and met with Filipino leaders in Manila.
  • On 15 February, as the Philippine National Assembly was about to declare Marcos the winner, Reagan questioned the credibility of the election.
  • On February 22, the country's Defense Secretary and Armed Forces Chief of Staff withdrew their support for the Marcos Government
  • On 24 February, at 5 a.m. Monday, the White House issued a statement saying: "A solution to this crisis can only be achieved through a peaceful transition to a new government."
  • On 25 February, there were two presidential inaugurations - one for Corazon Aquino and another for Ferdinand Marcos
  • At 9 o'clock the evening of 25 February, the Marcos family and tag-alongs were on their way to Clark Air Force Base.
  • 26 February 1986, Marcos and his party arrived in Hawaii.

More of the blow by blow account of those 20 days in February here.


On February 26, 1986, David Hess reported on Sen. Paul Laxalt's (R., Nev.) chore for then President Reagan at the very end of the Marcos regime in the Philippines: 

About 4:30 p.m. Monday, Sen. Paul Laxalt (R., Nev.) bluntly told Ferdinand E. Marcos by telephone: "I think you should cut and cut cleanly. I think the time has come."

Laxalt, in advising Marcos to surrender the Philippine presidency to his rival, Corazon C. Aquino, insisted later that his remarks - unbound by diplomatic niceties - were his own and not those of President Reagan. But at a briefing yesterday, White House spokesman Larry Speakes acknowledged that Laxalt's counsel reflected the President's sentiments.

Time.com has more in The Philippines Anatomy of a Revolution:
Was it true, as U.S. Ambassador Stephen Bosworth had told him, that President Reagan was calling for a "peaceful transition to a new government" in the Philippines? While the two men talked, Laxalt said later, it became apparent that Marcos was "hanging on, looking for a life preserver. He was a desperate man clutching at straws." He asked whether the reference to a "peaceful transition" meant he should stay on until 1987, when his current term was originally supposed to end, and he wondered whether some sort of power-sharing arrangement with the Philippine opposition could be worked out.

Marcos spoke of his fear that his palace was about to be attacked, but seemed determined to stay on as President. At Marcos' request, Laxalt then went to the White House, where he discussed the conversation with Reagan and Secretary of State George Shultz. The President repeated his desire for a peaceful, negotiated settlement in the Philippines and said once more that Marcos would be welcome if he decided to seek sanctuary in the U.S. But Reagan said he thought the idea of power sharing was impractical and that it would be undignified for Marcos to stay on as a "consultant."

At 4:15 p.m. Laxalt called Marcos, who immediately asked whether Reagan wanted him to step down. Laxalt said the President was not in a position to make that kind of demand. Then Marcos put the question directly to Laxalt: What should he do? Replied the Senator: "Mr. President, I'm not bound by diplomatic restraint. I'm talking only for myself. I think you should cut and cut cleanly. The time has come." There was a long pause that to Laxalt seemed interminable. Finally he asked, "Mr. President, are you still there?" Marcos replied, in a subdued voice, "Yes, I'm still here. I am so very, very disappointed."

In Manila it was after 5 o'clock in the morning of the longest day of Ferdinand Marcos' life. Before it was over, he would attend his final inauguration ceremony, a foolish charade carried out in the sanctuary of his Malacanang Palace. That evening, a ruler no more, he would flee with his family and retainers aboard four American helicopters to Clark Air Base on the first leg of a flight that would take him to Guam, Hawaii and exile.

Read more here.

Five years later, the Philippine Senate refused to ratify the treaty on one of the largest US defense facility in the world.


We don't know what will happen to Egypt tomorrow, but it's not totally unfamiliar. 


At 6:45 EST, President Obama had this remarks on the situation in Egypt.  Video here.