Wednesday, August 29, 2012

U.S Pledge to Afghanistan: Will the presidential campaign alter things?


Featured in The Pryer.
The run-up to the United States presidential election is already upon us, with the recent announcement of Paul Ryan as the Republican vice-presidential candidate.

One issue that candidates have been less vocal about is Afghanistan and American military forces. Earlier this year Britain’s defence minister announced plans to cut the British forces by more than half amongst shouts in the House of Commons that Britain can no longer afford such an army. One wonders which route the American president will take, how this will affect Afghanistan and whether the US can maintain such a foothold in the Middle East.So far the two presidential candidates, Obama and Romney, have discussed the issues of the healthcare proposals Obama’s administration put forward (so-called ‘Obamacare’), the role of women in society and, only this week, a Republican party member was discussing the explosive topic of abortion.
Under the Obama administration, the United States has pledged to support Afghanistan for ten years after the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel in 2014. The announcement of this partnership in April of this year raised interesting questions about the nature of nation-building and aid, as well as continuing U.S. interests in the state and region.
While the partnership sent a message to the Afghan people that the West will not abandon them, it was seemingly also a warning to the Taliban and neighboring states that a Western departure will not be an opportunity to make mischief.
Cynically speaking, the announcement was timely for President Obama given the controversies that have marred America’s relationship with Afghanistan—the burning of Korans by U.S. soldiers, the recent release of photographs showing soldiers posing with Afghan bodies, and the murderous rampage of Staff Sergeant Robert Bales.
The promise of continued American support signifies an attempt to assuage such tensions while making a graceful exit, but one must wonder; if Obama secures a second term, is a long-term influx of American aid what is needed in Afghanistan?
Writing in the Guardian in November 2011, Bill Easterly warned of the American tendency to use development initiatives as opportunities to strengthen defence. Easterly suggests that the American habit of providing aid to war-torn and fragile states in the interest of national security is “misguided.”
Instead the focus should be on “areas with a better track record—health, education, infrastructure, and clean water and sanitation—operating in societies where war, repression and corruption do not make it pointless for aid to operate.”
Obama has continued an aid legacy that according to Easterly is ineffective, would a second term unhindered by the need to consider re-election prospects change this? Would Republican Romney offer a different perspective on the topic of aid and Afghanistan?
Perhaps a more potent question that rises from the American pledge is: will it even work? Speaking at Carnegie Council in 2011, Francis Fukuyama discussed the problems that arise when outside influences attempt to help a nation rebuild itself: “I don’t think we realize how difficult it is, how many resources it takes, and how long a process it is.”
Economist Dambisa Moyo is more specific in her criticism of outside influence, stating that the problem with aid is that citizens cannot hold their governments fully accountable as the agendas of aid donors often influence any decision made.
At the time of the announcement the main question was: in the case of Afghanistan, will the American partnership hinder government with hidden agendas or will Afghanistan benefit from the protection of the U.S from potential threats?
Today I am asking, will the pledge change under a new President and why are the candidates remaining quiet over an issue that until recently was front page news?

Friday, August 3, 2012

When Enough is Enough.

Featured in The Pryer

Thursday 2nd of August should have been a wake up call for the International Community and yet for most the news of Kofi Annan’s resignation as special envoy of the UN and League of Arab States for Syria will not have registered. This is the depressing reality of international politics today. Whilst stories of victims in Aleppo continued to be broadcast many fail to realise that it is time for serious change.

For lack of a better phrase, the twenty – first century is stuck in a rut and going nowhere very fast. This needs to change and not only because the crisis in Syria has reached critical point. Look at all policies regarding domestic and international politics in the last century. How much has effectively changed? Not much is the answer.

Yes, there have been slight shifts here and there and the odd successful international policy but we are still stuck in the same relationships and organisations that grind to a halt at the prospect of action, we are still vulnerable to economic downturns due to the folly of others, we still have nuclear weapons despite decades of trying to eliminate them and we still live under the loom of distant war whether it be with Iran, China, North Korea or whoever. Effectively, the International System has ground to a halt.

In his farewell letter for The Financial Times Annan wrote “The UN has condemned the further descent to civil war but the fighting still goes on with no sign of relief for Syrians…while the Security Council is trapped in stalemate, so too is Syria.” Annan’s words are cutting in their truth about an entire political system that relies on age old alliances to save a situation despite an unwillingness for anyone to step forward and act.

Whilst reading Keith Payne on the topic of the popular Cold War theory of nuclear deterrence and its future, I was struck by his assessment of U.S defense policy and America’s reliance on a theory created in Cold War context. In his book he writes, “The confidence in deterrence that typified the Cold War is presumed to apply in China and to rogue states as if dramatic changes in opponent and context are irrelevant.” The argument being, that much has changed in the system and yet America has failed to grasp that policies might need to change alongside.

The United Nations has been symbolic of the step towards international cooperation since the end of the Second World War yet is now seemingly used as an excuse by all nations to shrug off responsibilities; Likewise the ever-popular Non – Nuclear Proliferation Treaty or the European Union. Where direct action has been necessary in the past these symbols of international cooperation have provided an excuse not to.

So far so dramatic, but think of examples. Had one of the nuclear states stepped up and eliminated nuclear stockpiles many would have followed yet states continue to splutter and negotiate. Had one country in Europe spoken up about the spending of others long before crisis hit perhaps the euro zone would have fared slightly better.  Had one country spoken up against Russian and Chinese reluctance to assist in Syria perhaps more forces would have been sent and Aleppo would not have suffered like they are doing so today.

Whilst this all sounds idealistic, maybe we should recognize that our system is failing and change is needed. Can we honestly say the United Nations is working? Can we hold our heads high and say we are doing all we can? Can we point to one nation that is providing necessary leadership? The West has long heralded its system of democracy and international cooperation as the one to emulate but are we failing to recognize that systems are crumbling and we should return to the drawing board? If Kofi Annan cannot see a way forward without change, then perhaps we should take note.