A New Look for an Old Strategy

A while back - February of last year, to be precise - when the blog was just getting started, I wrote a post about our relations with Pakistan. An election had just taken place, a former prime minister who had been running again had been assassinated two months earlier (her husband is now the current prime minister), and things were looking a bit better for a troubled country.

At the time I wrote that Senator Biden (now, of course, VP Biden) had a sensible suggestion: increase the economic, not military, aid to Pakistan in order to help the people, as opposed to strengthening the rule of President/General Musharraf. As an aside, I'd suggested the same thing in a class on terrorism earlier that year as a way to combat anti-american sentiment in Pakistan - and it was dismissed as "too long-term." Silly me for thinking that long-term stability for the citizens of Pakistan was a good thing.

At any rate, this discussion is now taking place in the White House and in Pakistan itself - as noted in an article in The New York Times today. The U.S. is offering $1.5 billion a year - an increase from the Bush administration - that is tied specifically to economic development. However, some of the other stipulations are that the U.S. gets a new consulate in Peshawar, the capital of the North-West Frontier Provinces (which is quite obviously a step towards more American military involvement within Pakistan), and that DynCorp - a security service much like Blackwater in Iraq - will continue to have a hand both in protecting Americans in Pakistan and in training Pakistanis in their continuing fight against militants. Interestingly enough, Blackwater is also in Pakistan, though it is now called Xe Services.

These stipulations have prompted considerable backlash among Pakistani politicians - and with good reason. It seems that the stipulations are a step towards an actual occupation of Pakistan. So yes, we are increasing economic aid - but we're simultaneously undermining the sovereignty of the Pakistani state. In recent months the army has made some significant progress in battling militants (especially in the Swat Valley), and this is the reward? The only argument given so far for the new consulate in Peshawar is for increased oversight on how the aid is spent, to ensure that it is used to help the economy and citizens of Pakistan. This is dubious at best. Increasing the number of embassy workers in Islamabad could be argued for in the same manner - but a new consulate in a sparsely populated area, where the fight against militants is at its height? That certainly seems more like a military move than anything else.

At any rate - I do believe it is good that we're increasing economic aid to Pakistan, and I hope it is used as intended. The more controversial stipulations, however, should be stripped. It is more important for the people of Pakistan to see a benevolent United States (whoo, I can barely type those last three words without laughing). Without such strong anti-american sentiment (fueled for years by our support of the dictatorial Musharraf regime, our drone strikes in the NWFP that often kill as many innocent civilians as they do militants, and now security services like DynCorp and Xe Services with little oversight), there would be no foothold for militants. It seems now that we are actually trying to perpetuate the circumstances in which militancy and terrorism is bred.

-the ambassador

Never Forget?

Although the invasion of Iraq is no longer (or so we are led to believe) a pressing issue, as we have (we are told) mostly withdrawn, I thought this video, which I came across recently, would be good for anyone to see.

It is extremely important to remember that the invasion of Iraq is not over. The primary reasons - which were clearly not the reasons (a smoking gun, WMDS, atrocities Saddam committed while we funded his government) - for the actual invasion, have no place in the post-invasion rhetoric. I won't go on too long a rant this time, since I already do that far too often - here's the promised video:

-the ambassador

Not a Coup?

Since it has been a couple of weeks and some developments in the political situation in Honduras have occurred, I thought I'd do a short follow-up post to "Coups for Breakfast."

Earlier this week, the State Department sent a letter to the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which, among other things, indicated that it had not even been decided as to whether or not what happened in Honduras was a coup. I may be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that when a democratically-elected president is gotten out of bed and forced onto a plane by his country's military, the only word for it is coup. Additionally, the $16.5 million in suspended military aid to the country has done little to show disapproval. As noted in an article in today's New York Times, a business leader in Honduras had this to say about the Obama administration's response to the coup: "Their bark is worse than their bite." Surprise, surprise. If Zelaya had been a little less friendly with Hugo Chavez and a little more friendly to the United States, I'd be willing to put money on a lot more suspended aid and a much more forceful 'bite.'

The letter, laughably, also says that the administration's policy is "based on finding a resolution that best serves the Honduran people and their democratic aspirations." Since this sentence follows one saying that the administration does not support any one side or politician - including, as I've said before, the democratically-elected president - it seems slightly hypocritical. In addition to all of this, the letter says that Zelaya's 'provocative actions' in the weeks leading up to the coup led directly to his removal. However, in a democratic country - or one that claims to be, at any rate - there are presumably other, less violent and controversial methods for confronting a president.

Although President Obama has said, and continues to say, since my last post that he supports the reinstatement of Zelaya, the actions and statements of the administration - and, more broadly, of the U.S. government as a whole - indicate otherwise. Again: surprise, surprise.

-the ambassador

Prison Breaks & Presidents

Last week, President Obama made his first trip to the continent of Africa, visiting Ghana. It is, in terms of the continent, a relatively stable state with a democratic form - the latest reincarnation of their constitution has yielded two transitions in power sans violence. The visit itself has been posited as the beginning of a new era in American-African relations. Obama was quoted in The New York Times saying, "wherever folks want to help themselves, we want to be there as a partner." In light of this, and the way the trip is being framed, I thought I'd do a post on some of America's more recent history with African nations.

Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, is also in the news this week. He's on trial in The Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity for the actions of the various militia he once controlled in Sierra Leone. During the trial earlier this week, as he was allowed to re-cap his life story to the court, he said that it was the CIA who released him from a penal institution in Massachussetts - in order to assist Thomas Quiwonkpa in staging a coup against then-president Samuel Doe - where he was being held, waiting to be extradited on embezzlement charges amounting to some $900,000 dollars.

Interestingly enough, according to Doe's former justice minister, it was also the CIA who backed the coup that brought Doe to power in the first place. Immediately afterwards, it was easy enough to deduce why they'd helped: Doe distanced himself completely from the USSR, which (in 1980, during the Cold War) was invaluable to the US. Well, as it turned out, Doe ran a pretty damn tyrannical ship - suppressing political opposition and mistreating targeted ethnic groups - and his strategic use in terms of the Cold War diminished over the early part of the decade. Seeing that his value was gone, the CIA then decided to covertly endorse and support Thomas Quiwonkpa's coup against Doe's regime. This one, however, didn't go so well. Quiwonkpa was murdered in the course of the coup and Doe retaliated by slaughtering an estimated 3,000 people in Quiwonkpa's native county.

Similarly, in Ghana itself, the CIA backed a military coup in 1966 to overthrow Kwame Nkrumah (the former prime minister), who is now recognized as one of the continent's most respected leaders. His downfall led to a volatile environment and a series of coups resulting in the complete lack of a stable government from '66 straight through until 1981 - severely harming the economy for nearly two decades.

I certainly hope that this is the beginning of a new era in American-African relations; it would be about time. However, there's nothing yet indicating that this isn't simply a smarter administration moving to reclaim valuable resources that have been encroached upon over the last few presidents by a rising and eager China. All of this should be kept in mind while browsing the international news in which Africa is sure to have a prominent place for the indefinite future.

-the ambassador

Coups for Breakfast

Over the last weekend in June, the Honduran military overthrew the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in a coup d'etat. Immediately, the move was condemned by governments throughout the hemisphere - perhaps most vocally by two leaders not expected to agree on much: President Obama, and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

Their condemnations were slightly different, of course, since while Obama disagreed perhaps with the method, he stopped short of calling for reinstatement of Zelaya. Chavez, on the other hand, had no such reservations. Additionally, he blamed the U.S. for playing a part in the coup.

While it is true that the U.S. has admitted to being in negotiations with the military prior to the coup, administration officials insist that it was all in an attempt to prevent an escalation in tensions from occurring. However, the lack of disclosure of details from the talks hasn't yielded much confidence in such statements.

President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica has been charged with arbitrating negotiations between Zelaya and interim president Robert Micheletti, but after two days no progress has been made. The coup itself was a result of a referendum (which would not have been legally binding, had it even passed, the likeliness of which is put into serious question by Zelaya's dubious popularity in his own country) Zelaya was pushing for, which would have extended current term limits for the president. Given that Zelaya has been relatively unfriendly towards the U.S. and its policies in the hemisphere, coupled with the fact that he has, on the other hand, been quite friendly with Chavez (who makes no attempt to hide his distrust of America), it seems obvious that the term limit extension would have been undesirable for the U.S.

Now, two-ish weeks later, the condemnations emanating from the U.S. have slowed quite a bit - and some members of Congress have even criticized the Organization of American States (O.A.S.) for suspending Honduras. Surprising to some, perhaps, but certainly not to anyone who knows America's track record with democracy around the world.

As a couple of examples (only two, since this post is running quite a bit longer than I originally planned, but make no mistake: there are many more), there was a successful coup in Chile in 1973 - a coup that overthrew a democratically elected left-leaning government, which was backed to some extent (how much still isn't clear) by the U.S. More recently, in 2002, a coup was attempted in Venezuela to overthrow Chavez himself. The U.S. admitted to meeting with some of the planners in the weeks preceding, but denied encouragement of the coup. Still, it was tacitly approved of by the Bush administration's immediate acceptance of the interim government set up following Chavez's removal. It is no wonder, then, that Chavez remains so suspicious of us.

At any rate, the situation in Honduras remains unresolved, though elections are meant to be held in November. Zelaya has not been allowed back into the country since he was rousted from bed by the military and forced onto a plane. A plane he was on which attempted to re-enter the country last weekend was forcibly kept from landing, again by the military. While Micheletti insists that there was no coup and that the military was simply defending the constitution, the actions of the military say otherwise.

I, for one, doubt that Zelaya will be allowed to return to Honduras until he accepts that he is no longer president, which seems unlikely. Just as unlikely is pressure from the Obama administration for Hondurans to respect democracy.

-the ambassador