QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men"
-- Edmund Burke

The Week In Review

America: The Debate Shifts To Foreign Policy

-- PARAMANAND SOOBARAH 

At long last, we citizens of the world have been gratified by the contenders for the White House job - one which whether we like it or not, and whether we realize it or not, affects all our lives - with their views on foreign policy, which for us means world affairs and our own affairs. Had Vice-President Al Gore been chosen President by the US Supreme Court in 2000, the world would have been a very different place today – certainly a much kindlier one. But the election was stolen from him by dubious devices in Florida where Jed Bush, brother of George Dubya, was Governor. And so we have what we have – a world torn apart by hatred and strife, economic woes, high oil and food prices, bank failures on a massive scale, and some even say, natural disasters like tsunamis, earthquakes, Katrinas and Nargises, swarms of killer tornados, thousands and thousands of acres of forest burnt down by fire falling from the sky in the form of lightning, Usama Bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinedjad, all of these being Acts of God to punish mankind for the sin of the American public in having agreed the appointment of George W. Bush as their President and that of the British public in having allowed their Prime Minister Tony Blair to become his henchman. This is why we had been waiting with bated breath the views of the candidates on foreign policy.

Senator Barack Obama came first – in a fiery chariot of oratory seldom heard by lay people not attending fundamentalist sermons. His is not of the religious, haranguing type, which threatens fire and brimstone to all who do not obey the Word. His is of the logical variety – almost a contradiction in terms. His sentences carry meaning and logic that appeal to our reason – it is not just a case of being moved by his music, intonation and rhythm, even though these elements are very much there. When the emotions die down, the logic remains. The tone was set by the opening sentence, much as President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address was – “Four score and seven years ago,” President Lincoln had said, “our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation...” Similarly began Senator Obama: “Sixty one years ago George Marshall announced a plan that would bear his name.”

I will quote the opening paragraphs in full, not only to display his oratorical skill, but also to remind ourselves of a important piece of world history. Never mind that what he is talking about happened at the close of a war we Mauritian children had not chosen, and that because of which we were having to survive on locally-grown manioc and sweet potatoes.  

Senator Obama’s opening salvo 

Speaking at the University of Purdue on Wednesday 16 July 2008, he said: “Sixty-one years ago, George Marshall announced the plan that would come to bear his name. Much of Europe lay in ruins. The United States faced a powerful and ideological enemy intent on world domination. This menace was magnified by the recently discovered capability to destroy life on an unimaginable scale. The Soviet Union didn't yet have an atomic bomb, but before long it would.

“The challenge facing the greatest generation of Americans - the generation that had vanquished fascism on the battlefield - was how to contain this threat while extending freedom's frontiers. Leaders like Truman and Acheson, Kennan and Marshall, knew that there was no single decisive blow that could be struck for freedom. We needed a new overarching strategy to meet the challenges of a new and dangerous world.

“Such a strategy would join overwhelming military strength with sound judgment. It would shape events not just through military force, but through the force of our ideas; through economic power, intelligence and diplomacy. It would support strong allies that freely shared our ideals of liberty and democracy; open markets and the rule of law. It would foster new international institutions like the United Nations, NATO, and the World Bank, and focus on every corner of the globe. It was a strategy that saw clearly the world's dangers, while seizing its promise.

“As a general, Marshall had spent years helping FDR wage war. But the Marshall Plan - which was just one part of this strategy - helped rebuild not just allies, but also the nation that Marshall had plotted to defeat. In the speech announcing his plan, he concluded not with tough talk or definitive declarations - but rather with questions and a call for perspective. ‘The whole world of the future,’ Marshall said, ‘hangs on a proper judgment.’ To make that judgment, he asked the American people to examine distant events that directly affected their security and prosperity. He closed by asking: ‘What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?’

“What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?”

So, after laying out the situation as it was at the end of the war, and coming to the present, he comes to the conclusion that he must also, like George Marshal, ask “What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?” His are not solutions coming from pre-conceived notions and prejudices - they come from an examination of the facts of on the table. And he proceeds to lay those facts down:

“Today's dangers are different, though no less grave. The power to destroy life on a catastrophic scale now risks falling into the hands of terrorists. The future of our security - and our planet - is held hostage to our dependence on foreign oil and gas. From the cave-spotted mountains of northwest Pakistan, to the centrifuges spinning beneath Iranian soil, we know that the American people cannot be protected by oceans or the sheer might of our military alone.

“The attacks of September 11 brought this new reality into a terrible and ominous focus. On that bright and beautiful day, the world of peace and prosperity that was the legacy of our Cold War victory seemed to suddenly vanish under rubble, and twisted steel, and clouds of smoke.

“But the depth of this tragedy also drew out the decency and determination of our nation. At blood banks and vigils; in schools and in the United States Congress, Americans were united - more united, even, than we were at the dawn of the Cold War. The world, too, was united against the perpetrators of this evil act, as old allies, new friends, and even long-time adversaries stood by our side. It was time - once again - for America's might and moral suasion to be harnessed; it was time to once again shape a new security strategy for an ever-changing world.”

Later on in his speech, perhaps put off for rhetorical effect, he comes back to the dangers facing America and the world:

“It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia. If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.” 

What he might have done in the circumstances 

He engages in some politics, for which we will readily forgive him, for we understand that he needs votes; besides we agree with much of what he says and fully support him in those issues. It is rather unfortunate we can’t vote for him from here. This is what he says he could have done:
“Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.
“We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.
“We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.
“We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.
“We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.

“We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.
“We could have secured our homeland --investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.
“We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.
“We could have done that.” 

And what did George W. Bush do? 

Here is what Dubya and the neocons, aided and abetted Prime Minister Tony Blair, did:

“Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats - all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

“Our men and women in uniform have accomplished every mission we have given them. What's missing in our debate about Iraq - what has been missing since before the war began - is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy. This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.”
So much for George W. Bush in the past. But what will he do himself next, if elected President? 

President Obama’s broad lines of action 

“Instead of pushing the entire burden of our foreign policy on to the brave men and women of our military, I want to use all elements of American power to keep us safe, and prosperous, and free. Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America - once again - to lead. As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy - one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer:
* ending the war in Iraq responsibly;

* finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban;
* securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states;
* achieving true energy security; and
* rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century. 

How will he deal with the Iraq problem? 

On Iraq, Senator Obama is aware that Prime Minister Al Maliki is calling for a timetable for American withdrawal. The puppet government installed by George W. Bush is now telling him to get the hell out of there. Did you think that he would let you stay and drain his oil out, Mr Bush? Did you think he would be a friend to you, simply because you deposed, captured and turned over to him his enemy Saddam Hussein to hang and trample on, when his Shia relatives are just across the pond, waiting to take him up in their arms after all the suffering he has endured? Consider yourself lucky, Mr Bush, if you just can go back to Texas and look after your cows – assuming that Senator Kucinich does not get his way in his bid to impeach you.

Senator Obama, in spite of his youthful appearance, knows a thing or two about the world. It is best to let him do the talking:
“We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave - General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq - victory in Iraq - will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not re-emerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis to stand up.”
We wish Senator Obama success and also wish him luck. It may be beyond him to set up a government that “prevents sectarian conflict” and ensures that the al Qaeda threat “which has been beaten back by our troops does not re-emerge”. While he thinks these are achievable goals, we think it is unwise of him to stake his credibility on them. There are some fires one cannot extinguish completely; you can think you have put them out, but the moment you turn your back, they start blazing again. That is what the last movement of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony is about. But on a very important point concerning Iraq, Senator Obama has this:
“We will commit $2 billion to a meaningful international effort to support the more than 4 million displaced Iraqis.”

Finally, somebody understands. Will anyone ever be able to forgive George W. Bush for the pain, suffering and misery he has inflicted for no reason whatever on the Iraqi people? And he has the guts to talk about Darfur. Not that Darfur does not matter – it very much does. But it is unbecoming of the hyena that eats lambs to mock the fox that eats chickens for its cruelty. 

What else will a President Obama do? 

* I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions - with fewer restrictions - from NATO allies.
* ...we'll invest in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers, just as we crack down on heroin trafficking.
* We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps, and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. ...And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.
* Make no mistake: we can't succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people.
* It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda.
* I'll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials around the world during my first term as President.
*...instead of threatening to kick them (the Russians) out of the G-8, we need to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material; to seek a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; and to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.
* Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table...
* One of the most dangerous weapons in the world today is the price of oil. We ship nearly $700 million a day to unstable or hostile nations for their oil. It pays for terrorist bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut. It funds petro-diplomacy in Caracas and radical madrasas from Karachi to Khartoum.
* I'll invest $150 billion over the next ten years to put America on the path to true energy security... We'll invest in research and development of every form of alternative energy - solar, wind, and biofuels, as well as technologies that can make coal clean and nuclear power safe.
* Now is the time for a new era of international cooperation. It's time for America and Europe to renew our common commitment to face down the threats of the 21st century just as we did the challenges of the 20th. It's time to strengthen our partnerships with Japan, South Korea, Australia and the world's largest democracy - India - to create a stable and prosperous Asia. It's time to engage China on common interests like climate change, even as we continue to encourage their shift to a more open and market-based society.
* It's time to deepen our engagement to help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, so that we help our ally Israel achieve true and lasting security, while helping Palestinians achieve their legitimate aspirations for statehood.
* I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease.
Senator Obama was to speak subsequently about his plans for dealing with biological weapons and cyber-terrorism, but regrettably we have not been able to get hold of the text in time for this issue. But it is enough for our purposes to know that he does have plans to deal with those threats.
How will these ideas go down in the world at large? There is no doubt that many in Pakistan will have reservations about them. If you are a Pakistani, never mind your political affiliation, you are unlikely to wax lyrical about a foreign leader’s statement that he may under certain circumstances take his own action against people he doesn’t like in your country. In the Middle East also, his ideas are not likely to please, but then nothing American is well-regarded in that region. But paradoxically, Senator Obama will remain the preferred candidate over Senator John McCain. But what has the latter been saying?

Main points of Senator John McCain’s speech 

Unlike Senator Barack Obama, Senator McCain did not cover the whole gamut of foreign policy issues as they affect national politics. Speaking just minutes after Senator Obama, all he wanted to do, he said, was to discuss “our slumping economy, job loss, rising gas and food prices, and what we need to do to get our economy growing again, create jobs and reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.” But he did address questions relating to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He promised he would catch Usama Bin Laden and bring him to justice. Most of the rest of what he had to say consisted of field technicalities in those countries. He repeated his conviction that the “surge” was working in Iraq, and spoke of his idea of applying the same strategy in Afghanistan. He pointed to the disorganised way in which the war is being fought in Afghanistan, with each of the components of the Allied Forces pulling its own way. That was no way to run a war, he said, and he would ensure that there was one Supreme Allied Commander. On points of detail, it is best to let him have his own words:
“Just as we have worked over the past 18 months to stabilize Iraq by bringing together its neighbors, this kind of diplomacy is just as important for Afghanistan. The violence there has many causes, but chief among them is the fact that Afghanistan is treated by some regional powers a chessboard on which to pursue their own ambitions. I will appoint a special presidential envoy to address disputes between Afghanistan and its neighbors. Our goal must be to turn Afghanistan from a theatre for regional rivalries into a commons for regional cooperation.”
Senator McCain must have been dreaming. How has the “stabilization” of Iraq come from the “bringing together” of its neighbours? The neighbours of Iraq are Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. Which ones of them were brought together with Iraq by US foreign policy? It would certainly be a good thing to send a good regional coordinator to Afghanistan; hopefully Senator McCain can find somebody better qualified for the job than Paul Bremer.

President McCain’s Pakistan policy 

On Pakistan, he has this to say:
“A special focus of our regional strategy must be Pakistan, where terrorists today enjoy sanctuary. This must end. We must strengthen local tribes in the border areas who are willing to fight the foreign terrorists there -- the strategy used successfully in Anbar and elsewhere in Iraq. We must convince Pakistanis that this is their war as much as it is ours. And we must empower the new civilian government of Pakistan to defeat radicalism with greater support for development, health, and education. Senator Obama has spoken in public about taking unilateral military action in Pakistan. In trying to sound tough, he has made it harder for the people whose support we most need to provide it. I will not bluster, and I will not make idle threats. But understand this: when I am commander-in-chief, there will be nowhere the terrorists can run, and nowhere they can hide.”
To me, this statement is more ominous than Senator Obama’s. 

The Middle East: Exchange of “prisoners”

The most publicised event in the Middle East has been the exchange of “prisoners” between the State of Israel and the “terrorist group” Hezbollah. Five Hezbollah prisoners, including Samir Quntar believed to be guilty of a particularly atrocious crime, and the remains of 200 Lebanese fighters were exchanged against the remains of two Israeli soldiers kidnapped two years ago by the Hezbollah in a cross-border raid. This has been a great comedown for the Israel, for it had launched a war against the Hezbollah last year, and lost it ignominiously, for precisely those two soldiers. While there was great rejoicing on the Lebanese side, where all parties united for once to receive the returning “heroes”, but deep and solemn mourning on the Israeli side. It is impossible not to infer from their actions that the Israelis have put themselves in an unreasonably vulnerable position by these policies. If you want to get anything from Israel, just get hold of an Israeli soldier!

There also raises another very serious issue: what does a country do when it has allowed one group within its borders to get so powerful with weapons that it cannot control it. Of course it is unwise for a country to allow such a thing to happen, but if it does happen against all one’s best efforts, what is one to do?

This situation had arisen in Palestine with Hamas getting stronger than the official government forces, and has been temporarily “resolved” by a partition of what was to become one country into the West Bank and Gaza, with the latter portion being under Hamas. Hopefully that is not the end of the story, but it does provide some relief from day to day violence. In Lebanon, where the Hezbollah has, with the help of Syria and Iran, has become more powerful not just than the Lebanese army but also, and demonstrably so, more powerful than the mighty Israeli war machine. While some may think a partition of Lebanon into North and South might be a solution, what the Hezbollah thinks is probably a total take-over of the country. Politicians of all countries have a responsibility for ensuring that this sort of thing does not repeat itself elsewhere.  

South Asia: In Turmoil 

This region is in turmoil. It is very sad that the new civilian government in Pakistan has not had time to settle down properly before being forced by actions and statements of other parties into reacting in ways it would have preferred not to.

The long-standing problem in Pakistan is the over-arching presence of the military and its tool, the ISI, in all areas of civilian life. Until Parliament can bring these two organisations fully under its control and the Prime Minister can become fully and truly answerable for their actions (because they were authorised by him in the first place), an abnormal situation will prevail in the country. When things are not done properly, usually through the acts and omissions of the military, it is the government and the people that take the blame particularly from foreign countries and organisations. It is natural in these circumstances for both politicians and the press to take a stand against those who are criticizing the country, particularly if they are from across the border.

Now, following the insurgent activity on the border and the bomb blast against the Indian Embassy (the 7/7 bombing: does this figure ring a bell?), criticisms are pouring into Pakistan from all sides – from the British, the Americans, the Afghans and the Indians. This only serves to strengthen the hand of President Musharraf; he may succumb to his military instincts and take the country over once again; or somebody else may do it for him. Sadly, there will be no comprehensive peace in the region without comprehensive internal peace in Pakistan. Ominously, it is rumoured that the troublemakers may find a new refuge in Bangladesh if Pakistan becomes too hot for them. Too bad. But these evil people must be relentlessly pursued until they have no option but to jump into the Pacific from the shores of the Philippines. 

PARAMANAND SOOBARAH