What America needs to do By Ali Ezzatyar / Shahpur Kabraji

When its highest ranking military officer declares a major ally to be the potential sponsor of multiple terrorist attacks, including a 20-hour-long assault on a US embassy, the US has a problem. When it turns out that the same ally has also enlisted its military and intelligence to ambush and kill American servicemen, as Pakistan did in 2007, the US has a crisis. American policy towards Pakistan undoubtedly walks a tight rope, but it also needs an urgent rethink. A transformation in US policy towards Pakistan must begin immediately, from recalibrating its military aid, to premising that aid on Pakistan’s position, vis-a-vis India.

For too long, Pakistan has advanced the excuse that since it is deeply involved in helping the US fight terrorism, the US should have patience and appreciation for its multiple challenges. This has allowed Pakistan to get a pass when certain elements within the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) have provided material aid to elements like the so-called Haqqani network, whose stated aim is the destruction of US forces in the region. The excuse also allows Pakistan to remain complacent with respect to reforming its relationship with India, who it incorrectly views as its main enemy. As a result, Pakistan’s resources (among which US aid dollars count aplenty) are mismanaged and military intelligence failures of the highest order abound. As the Kabul embassy attack demonstrates, the US can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to Pakistan’s sloppiness.

While it may not be an immediate solution, the US must begin bychanging the nature of military aid to Pakistan. The current system of reimbursing Pakistan for military assistance it provides does not work; an immense amount of money is spent on conventional hardware with an eye on India, that is largely useless in a war against small groups of terrorists. Rather than having this opaque mercenary arrangement, the US and Pakistan must openly demonstrate to citizens in both countries that US aid is being provided to combat terrorism and not for the purchase of redundant hardware, or even worse, siphoned into offshore bank accounts. After yet another alleged show of support for terrorism by elements of the Pakistan Government, the US is understandably sceptical of the Pakistani government, asking for resources and intelligence to deal with terrorists; the US administration is fearful that any intelligence provided will only allow the targets to move on before any operation can be executed. But the deal on the table should be simple: Pakistan must deal with specific threats as identified by the US. A failure to deal with such threats should result in reduction in aid. If the target is sufficiently high value, the US should make clear that it can and will act independently unless Pakistan demonstrates immediate willingness and control of its sovereign territory.

The mismanagement and miscommunication is partially the result of the US doing a poor job of articulating its vision in a way that facilitates Pakistani cooperation. While it is no excuse, recent revelations that Pakistani military officers were involved in attacks aimed at killing American soldiers are thought to be retaliation for US indifference to Pakistani casualties along the Afghan border. To convince a sceptical Pakistani government (and people) that they should be committing more to the fight, the US itself has to make its commitment to the region unequivocal. Washington should make clear to Islamabad and Kabul that, unlike previously, the US sees Pakistan and stability there, as crucial to furthering US regional interests. Part of this must be more pressure, premised on aid and diplomatic recognition, for Pakistan to redirect its military and political efforts (both internally and externally) away from outdated distractions such as confronting India.

Finally, the US must understand that its own reputation in the region is increasingly that of an incompetent dilettante. To show real commitment to the cause of stability in Pakistan means understanding some of the emotional issues that agitate young Pakistanis and using soft power to address these as well. It should reduce its dealings with the army such that it diminishes the role of the army as one of the fundamental components of the nation’s power structure to the benefit of democratic institutions.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 14^th, 2011.

Source: http://tribune.com.pk/story/273277/what-america-needs-to-do/

Movement in the making By Hina Mahmood

APPROACHING Zuccotti Park, the sound of drumbeats in the air, I could see hundreds of protesters, picketing on its lawns, a few blocks from Ground Zero in New York.

Dozens of signs read, ‘We are the 99 per cent’, as the earnest Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters, spoke to anyone who would listen, on issues ranging from corporate greed to education reform. The OWS movement, now in its fourth week, has gained momentum, spreading to over 25 cities. A hodgepodge of vague demands by an equally eclectic range of people projected through posters, signs, flyers, art and even music made it difficult to grasp the unifying message or theme that had brought them together.

Henry Gargan, a student from North Carolina, was hoping to encourage corporations to regulate waste and be environmentally friendly. Nicole Doula was protesting big government, favouring devolution of power to the state and community level. While Zak Cunningham, sitting beside his class warfare sign, identified himself as a communist. Despite this fragmentation, many protesters did share a sense of deepening inequality, a need for job creation and a desire for politicians to do more for the ‘other 99 per cent’.

Two factors will determine the success of the movement; frustration with the economy and the upcoming presidential race.

Frustration with the economy, Wall Street and politicians is palpable. People are furious with banks in particular: the dire state of the economy caused by irresponsible lending, the bailout by the government with taxpayer dollars and finally, the cosy relationship between politicians and Wall Street resulting in low taxes for the wealthy and light regulation.

Tom Phillips, a protester, echoed this last sentiment, “People are overeducated, underemployed, and debt-ridden.

Government has lost its way, taking care of the greedy and putting them in office. I want to show the government and Congress, to get re-elected the people will not put up with it.”

Due to a nationwide sense of inequality, high unemployment and the perception of political favour for the wealthy, the movement has spread quickly to over two dozen cities, from D.C. to Alabama to San Diego. This surge in support has caused politicians to take note. Many are referring to the OWS movement as the Tea Party for the Democrats. There are similarities.

Both movements started out with a lack of central organisation, as a backlash to Wall Street bailouts, and spread quickly nationwide. Unlike, the Tea Party at that time, the majority of OWS protesters believe that the government needs to be part of the solution.

This is where the political climate becomes interesting. With the upcoming elections and Obama’s unpopularity regarding his bailouts, the Democrats are keen to win back the support of the ‘other 99 per cent’. Obama has been eager to gain support for his ambitious job proposal, paving the way to reduce unemployment, create jobs and increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy — goals the protesters broadly share.

The Democrats are wisely tapping into OWS with House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi giving it her full endorsement on Sunday. “I support the message to the establishment, whether it’s Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest, that change has to happen,” she said. “We cannot continue in a way that does not — that is not relevant to their lives. People are angry.”

While Democrats continue to equate themselves with populist demands, they are keen to equate the Republicans with the interests of the rich and wealthy. Republicans, on their part, are not doing much to dispel this image. Mitt Romney, GOP frontrunner, described the Wall Street protests as “class warfare”. While Rick Perry, his main GOP competition, indirectly referred to the movement when he said “…you can’t rev up the engine of economic growth by heaping higher taxes on job creators, you can’t spread success by punishing it, you can’t unite our country by dividing it.…”

The ugliness between the Democrats and Republicans has begun, with Eric Cantor, House majority leader, referring to the protesters as “mobs” who have pitted “Americans against Americans”. Nancy Pelosi has retorted by accusing Cantor of being hypocritical for criticising the Wall Street protesters, while endorsing the Tea Party movement.

The fact that OWS is getting politicians riled up speaks more for the protests than the slogans pasted on their boards. The Democrats will see the movement as a way to promote their agenda of deficit reduction, job creation, and taxation on the wealthy, and as support grows, will try to bring about some coherence and unity.

As the presidential race begins next year, the Democrats may remember the House midterm elections when the Republicans rode to victory on the tail of an energised Republican base, thanks in large part to the Tea Party movement. If they are smart, they will use OWS as an antidote for the Tea Party, and perhaps, will succeed in eventually bringing it into their political fold.

The Tea Party, having gained momentum just two years ago, now finds itself in a powerful position to help Republicans defeat Obama. It is conceivable that, with OWS, the Democrats could do the same The fact that the Democrats are interested in ‘using’ OWS, is to the protesters’ advantage. Though they oppose Obama’s bailouts, they share many of his goals. OWS has won the attention of political players. The next step will be to translate demands into sound policy proposals in Congress. This will only happen if Democrats continue to stay in power. If they both ‘use’ each other effectively, it might just turn into a win-win situation.

The writer, a development economist, is currently working as a freelance journalist in New York.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/13/movement-in-the-making.html