Understanding the war in Afghanistan

Who knew that understanding the war was so easy.

With Flights Grounded, Kenya’s Produce Wilts

Post by Stephanie Wright, Great Decisions student

Article

Europeans aren’t the only ones being affected by the Icelandic ash blocking much of their airspace. Kenya’s cut-flower and gourmet vegetable industry is being compromised by the ash, too. Two million pounds of produce is shipped out of Kenya nightly, with over 80 percent of these goods shipped to Europe, and over a third of that shipped only to Great Britain. Because of the ash, this entire industry has come to a near standstill. All available refrigerated warehouses at the airport in Nairobi have already been filled, waiting for the first chance to be shipped.

The horticulture industry is losing 3 million dollars a day, cutting jobs and growing stressed. All temporary workers and thousands of others have already been let go. Those still employed have little to do but sit and watch millions of flowers wilt and tons of vegetables and fruits go to feed livestock. Owners and managers of plants are becoming more and more worried that their clients, such as European grocery stores, will find other producers because they cannot stock their shelves. The plants are looking to Prime Minister Raila Odinga to help pay for special flights to get the industry moving again. Already a volatile state, Kenya cannot afford to lose more capital in agriculture, the largest sector of its economy.

Darker Than Usual

Post by Chris Scanzoni, Great Decisions student

New York Times journalist Ethan Bronner recently published a poignant piece illustrating the paradox of the festivities in Jerusalem (1). Despite the grandiose displays of fireworks and outdoor celebrations, popular sentiment on the 62nd Day of Independence in Israel (April 19, 2010) may be better characterized by a grim sense of the nation's international legitimacy and security. Bronner speculates that this year's festivities appear "darker than usual" in the face of the relentless Iranian nuclear program and unprecedentedly strained relations with the United States. Moreover, Bronner cites a widely-reported BBC poll placing Israel among Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan as one of the least-favorably viewed nations in the world. The poll points to a dangerous reality for Israel: without unconditional support for its policies by the United States, a regionally-isolated Israel can no longer ignore the fundamental interests of its immediate neighbors (i.e. water allocation, militantism, etc.). A sustained hardline Israel posture that seeks settlement in the West Bank, starves the Palestinians of basic essentials, and flexes its unrivaled military capacity only serves to embolden Israel's enemies. Nevertheless, it still feasible that Prime Minister Netanyahu can advance policies to remedy this trajectory and peacefully integrate Israel among the moderate Arab powers (e.g. Egypt, Jordan). Overtures indicating a genuine Israeli interest in a comprehensive and just peace agreement with West Bank Palestinians is an immediate option at Netanyahu's disposal. A prudent peace agreement in the West Bank would simultaneously undermine the clout of Iranian leaders and of Hamas, repair the US and EU-Israel alliances, and expand available trading networks for Israel's businesses.

Senior Program Office at the United States Institute of Peace Matthew Levinger contends that "a conflict must arrive at a state of 'ripeness' for negotiation before a settlement becomes possible. This condition can involve a 'hurling stalemate,' where both sides recognize that they are likely to suffer more by continuing the conflict than by ending it" (2). The time has arrived that President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Netanyahu reengage the peace process, act responsibly, and allow Israel to return to the mantle of an indispensable friend for its neighbors.


CITED:
1. Bronner, Ethan. "Memo from Jerusalem: Mood is Dark as Israel Marks 62nd Year as Nation." The New York Times Online, 19 Apr, 2010. Accessed 20 Apr, 2010 .

2. Levinger, Matthew. "Enhancing security through peace-building." Great Decisions 2010. The Foreign Policy Association. New York, NY: Dartmouth Printing Company, 2010. 93-102. Print.

Obama’s Summit as a Success?

Post by Lindsay Rosenfeld, Great Decisions student

Talk regarding the dangers of nuclear weaponry has become quite prevalent throughout the past few years, reaching its peak this month with the two-day nuclear security conference in Washington D.C. With representatives from 46 countries in attendance, Barak Obama aims to enlist the support of these nations in securing all nuclear material. In today’s world, the prospect of nuclear materials falling into the “wrong” hands is far from unbelievable.
The summit has already proven to be quite promising with the Ukraine’s announcement that it would get rid of its supply of highly enriched uranium by 2012 and Russia’s promise to close its ADE-2 reactor. The truth of the matter is, however, that the true success of the summit will not be apparent until years from now. The primary concern and, likewise, danger is not necessarily the proliferation of such nuclear weaponry, but the unaccounted presence of such materials that can fall into the hands of extremists and terrorists.
Unfortunately, not every country is as concerned with maintaining nuclear security as the United States. This regrettable truth could prove to be the downfall for the nuclear security summit. Rightfully so, countries in sub-Saharan Africa will prioritize eradicating poverty and advancing development over securing nuclear materials. In order to ensure the cooperation of such countries, the Obama administration will need to provide incentives to encourage these countries to cooperate. Whether these incentives come in the form of monetary aid or personnel deployment, these countries need to support the efforts of the summit or else its success will be compromised.

Nature and Business

Post by Alyssa Baskam, Great Decisions student

The cloud of Volcanic ash from Mount Eyjafjallajokull continues to delay air transit throughout Europe. Businesses are beginning to be concerned about possible losses as businessmen remain stranded or unable to complete their business trips. Businesses such as DHL must find creative ways to get their products into and out of Europe and have started shipping to perimeter airports, from where they use ground transport to move their items. This has led to some delays and it is yet to be seen how much loss businesses will accrue. Interestingly enough, other industries have started to boom because of the ash cloud. Bus and train transportation, car rentals, and hotels have benefitted from increased usage. Hotels are full of people who are stranded in the midst of their journeys, at the beginning of their journeys, and unable to return home from their journeys. There is hope that the increase in business at these ends will help to stabilize the GDP. It is still uncertain what kind of effect this ash cloud "freeze" will have on the European economy.

“Ahmadinejad: Iran too 'mighty' to attack”

Post by Emily Jacobson

In response to being snubbed from last week’s nuclear summit in Washington, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a warning letter to Obama, spoke out condemningly against the U.S. and the UN Security Council, and held his own retaliatory nuclear conference in Tehran. His seemingly oversized reaction reflects the seriousness of Iran’s intention to be seen as a high status power. Yet while Obama utilized the Washingtonian nuclear summit to pressure countries to support sanctions against Iran, Ahmadinejad repeated the overstated claim that Iranians are after energy not nukes.

"One of the greatest treasons by those that monopolize nuclear weapons is to equalize nukes with nuclear energy,” he asserted. And yet if Iran is only after nuclear energy, one should question why the president reacted so fiercely to being excluded from the conference.

Additionally, Ahmadinejad played the global good guy in his speech. He called the Security Council the “tool” of a few bullying nations and insisted that “Iran is a friend and brother of regional and independent nations and it wants peace, progress and security for all countries.” It may be time for Obama to shift his approach to Iran, especially if Scheuer can be credited when he named two other regional concerns that should take more priority over struggles with Iran. However, if Iran’s reaction to merely being excluded from a nuclear conference is any indication, we should be cautious in our approach with Iran. Especially as they complete their nuclear homework.

Article

Russia Rejecting Belarus-Kazakhstan Joint Bid to WTO

Post by Bryan Kozik, Great Decisions student

In June 2009, both Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev of Russia publicly discussed the likelihood of Russia’s joint bid to join the World Trade Organization with Belarus and Kazakhstan. This bid would be the result of a proposed customs union between the three states. This union’s first stage took effect on 1 January, and is planned to be complete by 1 July 2011.

Russia has debated joining the WTO since the fall of the Soviet Union. This most recent plan, which was surprising to world leaders and unlikely at its inception due to WTO regulations, has proved to be an idea that both Russian politicians and WTO leaders would like to rescind. Russia, though still committed to the customs union, is likely to join the WTO individually by the beginning of next year.
President Medvedev and First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov agree that the necessary measures that need to be taken to join the WTO, such as lowering certain customs duties, are not likely to happen quickly. They also agree that they expect the United States to put substantial effort towards facilitating Russia’s process.

Article

Greece lightning

Greek and international officials are meeting this week to hammer out the details of the loans to Greece. But, Greece says that no one has asked it to implement austerity measures, including tax overhauls and spending cuts. It seems hard to believe that these lenders would not demand that Greece do more to cut back. If Greece were able to extract those loans basically on its own terms, it could be a major bonus politically for the Socialists in power. They want the loans but don't want to have to deal with the backlash of austerity measures.

Repatriating Nukes

Post by Brendan Yorke, Great Decisions student

Under threat of terrorist strike, Obama is determined to tie up the worlds’ loose radioactive strings. His four-year plan includes collecting the thousands of kilograms of highly enriched uranium, nuclear bombs, and nuclear waste.

Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper eagerly signed the resolution to send the nations nuclear waste South. Once in the US, the weapon’s grade material will be converted to a form only usable for fuel and returned to Canada. The two governments worked side-by-side to create the agreement-- hoped to become the norm for other, more worrisome nations such as Pakistan.

There had been some worry that a rift had formed between the long-time allies after Hilary Clinton criticized Canadian foreign policy in Afganistan and the developing world. After the meeting of Harper and Obama, Canada--US relations seem to be just as strong as ever. Whether for economic or historical reasons, this shows the resilient bond between Canada and the United States. And hey, what could be better than a little nuclear waste to solidify a friendship?

The article can be found here.

Africa’s Drug Problem

Post by Shar-Narne' Flowers, Great Decisions student


A few weeks back we had our lecture about global crime presented by Dr. Bruce Bagley, a professor of International Studies at Miami University. In it, he focused on the drug trafficking occurring between the United States and Mexico/ Latin America. A little over a week ago the New York Times published an article (found here) where, instead of focusing on the drugs passing through the U.S. / Mexico border, the article describes how drug lords have begun to target struggling countries within Africa in order to increase the drug trade between the producers in South America and users in Europe.

As explained in the article, the tiny country of Guinea-Bissau has emerged as a vital midway point for drug trafficking operations. Although there are many factors as to why the country has begun to participate in such an illicit activity, such as an unstable economy and political system, the most significant contributing factor is the fact that many citizens of Guinea-Bissau live in extreme poverty. Guinea-Bissau’s GDP in 2008 was $848 million - among the lowest in the world. In comparison, the GDP for the United States for the same year was 14.441 trillion (Sources: Guinea-Bissau and United_States). These high levels of poverty unfortunately create an easy environment for the drug lords to come in and take residence. The financially distressed citizens are eager to use the drug trade as an opportunity to provide for their families and even use it to gain status within their communities. And the impoverished government does not have enough funds available to adequately take action against the drug siege.

I find this article to be interesting because it shows just how globalized the drug trade actually is. The article even mentions that globalization is a force that Guinea-Bissau is powerless to defend itself from, as “…producers will find a way to deliver all things insatiably desired, whether good or bad.” The main force, I think, that is driving the drug trade is the money, not the drugs themselves. And I think that is important to keep in mind. I feel that the best way to combat illegal activity is to pay attention to the factors causing people to feel as if participating is the only viable way to get out of their dismal situation.

Partisan Messages in Financial Issues

Post by Thomas Wiggins, Great Decisions student

Going off of our discussion concerning the financial recession and the Obama administration’s goals of increased government regulation of financial institutions, this article describes Tea Party political pressures on the Republican Party.
Tom De Luca, a professor of political science at Fordham University, advised for this article and he made a very interesting statement. “What remains to be seen is how closely the movement allies itself with the GOP, to what extent the various Tea Party groups come together as a formal organization and whether the activists solidify around a more coherent message removed from vitriolic embellishments and not grounded in fear, De Luca said.”
He also asked what would happen if the economy improves and the Tea Party’s extreme messages are discredited. This goes along the same lines of what happened at the beginning of this recession when China made similar radical statements against limited regulation, statements that were later discredited when the recession leveled out and began climbing again. Is it fear and ignorance that truly drives such extreme views of governance, such as Stanley Black suggested in his Great Decisions lecture on April 13? It is my opinion that what we need is not more or less regulation, but smarter regulation. The United States, and preferably with cooperation with international financial regulation institutions, needs to create a program of incentives that cause financial institutions to regulate themselves. Such a program would limit then limit the need for outside regulation and thus government regulatory presence. So for now, I think the best way would be increased regulation until such a program can be designed and implemented that would work on a wide scale.

Going Nuclear

Post by BJ Dworak, Great Decisions student

Article

This article provides an interesting intersection in several of the topics we have discussed--special envoys, the Middle East/Persian Gulf, and even Russia. While the United States made great progress in its relations with Russia in the last week signing an agreement to reduce nuclear stockpiles in both countries, problems remain abound regarding the proliferation of nuclear weapons. As the article indicates, no where is this situation more delicate than in Indian and Pakistan. There are great underlying tensions between both countries and despite President Obama expressing confidence in Pakistan's safeguarding of their nuclear weapons, it is well known that there are few institutional safeguards in Pakistan for the use of nuclear weapons. World leaders are currently gathering in Washington to discuss the role of nuclear weapons in the international realm. However, the issue of Pakistan and India is not on the agenda. This underscores the importance of a strong and capable special enjoy to deal with Af-Pak. Matter of fact, a single special envoy devoted to Pakistan might best suit US foreign policy. Regardless, it is important that the United States expends some diplomatic capital in ensuring that the nuclear situation does not get out of hand any where in the world, but especially in the volatile Middle East. If roadblocks to an agreement with Russia can be overcome, anything is possible.

Author Gordon Chang takes an unconventional look at the Chinese holding of U.S. debt.

Decrying Genocide

Christopher Hitchens, with great passion, analyses Turkey's approach to its blood-soaked past here.

Thesis paragraph:

So it is not just a disaster for Turkey that it has a prime minister who suffers from morbid disorders of the personality. Under these conditions, his great country can never hope to be an acceptable member of Europe or a reliable member of NATO. And history is cunning: The dead of Armenia will never cease to cry out. Nor, on their behalf., should we cease to do so. Let Turkey's unstable leader foam all he wants when other parliaments and congresses discuss Armenia and seek the truth about it. The grotesque fact remains that the one parliament that should be debating the question—the Turkish parliament—is forbidden by its own law to do so. While this remains the case, we shall do it for them, and without any apology, until they produce the one that is forthcoming from them.

Pakistan's ISI Hasn't Changed Much

I'm a tad biased, and will therefore refrain from commentary here. But below is a pasted news bulletin which can be found here.


""
The existence of historical ties between Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence directorate and the Afghan Taliban is hardly news. But when the Afghan Taliban's second in command, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, was recently captured, many saw it as a turning point for an agency that is little understood within the CIA. But now officials believe that even as some of Pakistan's security forces have been working alongside Americans to capture key Afghan insurgents, the ISI "quietly freed at least two senior Afghan Taliban figures it had captured on its own," reports the Washington Post. This is seen as evidence that parts of Pakistan's security leadership continues to support elements of the Afghan Taliban in its broad attempt to shape the future of Afghanistan and prepare for an eventual U.S. withdrawal. Pakistani intelligence officials deny that any Taliban figures have been released.

""

The original story can be found in the Washington Post.

Russia-US sign nuclear arms deal

Article.

Obama and Medvedev signed a comprehensive nuclear arms reduction treaty today. This replaces the now defunct START treaty, and allows both states to continue mutual disarmament. The terms of the treaty, seen in the article, provide for a ~30% reduction in both warheads and launchers.

US-China Relations:The Yuan

Post by Ivan Kirov, Great Decisions student

Background: China's Yuan is pegged to the American dollar. This keeps its currency artificially devalued)

The Economist recently published an article (America and the Yuan: The Truth Hurts) that further elaborates on the speculation that the Treasury Department will call China a currency manipulator in its biannual report. The arguments for and against are fairly clear. On the one hand, the hope is that having the Treasury openly condemn the undervalued Yuan will pressure the Chinese to revalue just as tariffs in 2005 led to rapid Chinese revaluation. On the other hand, there is not much that the American government can practically do to alter China's currency stance -- and there is no need to tempt fate by risking an all-out trade war. After all, the Administration has already been negligent enough on the trade front with the tire tariff and the non-opposition to the infamous 'Buy American' provisions in the 2008 stimulus package.

This new article adds a rather powerful argument in favor of branding China a manipulator -- it would forestall preemptive and aggressive Congressional action. The last thing either side wants is a currency or trade war, and that is precisely what would happen should Senators Schumer and Graham succeed in forcing the government to seek redress against China in the IMF, WTO, and through unilateral tariffs. The hope, the article notes, is that by putting China on its manipulator list the administration can pull the rug out from under those calling for more extreme measures.

Some of the poison and vitriol may have been drawn out of the issue after China's recent statements toward a more market-based currency regime. Perhaps China will finally start to dismantle the Great Wall of Yuan that helps keep the global economy from rebalancing away from the dramatic paired surplus-deficit axes of the past.

Karzai on Heroin?

Quote from "The Slatest", link here

Is President Karzai a Heroin Addict?

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been acting certifiably crazy. At first, everyone attributed it to hurt feelings (an invitation to the White House had been abruptly rescinded). But it's only gotten worse, with Karzai accusing Americans of engineering Afghan election fraud and hinting that he could join the Taliban. Now Peter Galbraith, the American who was once a top U.N. official in Afghanistan, has told MSNBC that the erratic behavior may be about a lot more than diplomatic snubbings. Galbraith said he questions Karzai's "mental stability" and dropped a not-so-subtle hint that the Afghan president is a herion addict. "He's prone to tirades," Galbraith said. "He can be very emotional, act impulsively. In fact, some of the palace insiders say that he has a certain fondness for some of Afghanistan's most profitable exports." Galbraith is not the world's most neutral source on Karzai (he was removed from his U.N. job after accusing Karzai of election fraud), and other diplomatic types say Karzai is paranoid or depressed, not on drugs. Either way, his behavior is bad news for the United States, which needs a strong ally in Kabul if it is to bring most of its troops home from Afghanistan by next year. The White House is bearish on Karzai; press secretary Robert Gibbs danced around the question of whether Karzai is a U.S. ally Tuesday, saying, "He is the democratically elected leader of Afghanistan." Many foreign policy analysts say it's time for the United States to effectively ditch the president; writing in the New York Times Wednesday, one former Defense official argues that if the United States wants to get out of Afghanistan, it's going to have to ignore Kabul (and Karzai) and deal directly with local leaders who will actually cooperate. "Mr. Karzai should be treated as a symbolic president and given the organizational 'mushroom treatment,' " he says. "That is, we should shut off the flows of information and resources directly to the national government."


It's about time for Afghanistan to take back all its "heritage territory", kick the ethnic elite out of government, shed interference from foreign intelligence agencies, and build some roads. And to execute Karzai for criminal incompetence.

Road map to peace right there. 


--Abhinav

Which Side Will China Choose?

Post by Tim Armstrong, Great Decisions student

With tensions building between the US and Iran, the question of which side China will take becomes more and more relevant. On one side, Iran claims ties between Tehran and Beijing has increased recently due to policies of the US. Saeed Jalili, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Counsel, claims that "both nations have agreed on the need to fight against unilateralism." He then talked about how both countries are opposed to powers that use their military and economic pressure to control other countries.

On the other side, President Obama is confident that China will support the US after talking with Chinese President Hu Jintao about the "importance of working together" on Iran. This seems like a sudden shift in China's policies since they have been pretty resistant to previous calls for additional sanctions, stating that they prefer diplomacy. This cooperation between the two powers shows a willingness to move beyond issues such as Obama's meeting with the Dalai Lama and US arms sales to Taiwan.

We will see how China's stance changes when they are forced to talk with action instead of words. China will only be able to play both sides of the coin for so long. The more time China takes to choose a side the closer Iran gets to developing nuclear warheads and potentially upsetting the balance in the middle east.

More information here and here.

The Af-US Relationship

Post by Leah Downey, Great Decisions student

This is an article about a recent flare up between Hamid Karzai and the Obama Administration. The article demonstrates the line that the Obama administration walks between the "strong Afghan partner (that) is key to the Obama strategy of winning over the civilian population and turning Afghans against the Taliban" and not getting to close to a leader who has been wrapped up in election fraud, threatens to join the Taliban if his parliament doesn't back his decisions, and calls on foreign powers to stop "meddling" in Afghan affairs. I do not envy the Obama Administration. They're in a tough spot. It is quite obvious that they need to support Karzai and the Afghan parliament to some extent, in order to form a stable and timely government for the country of Afghanistan. However, what is most frightening to me is that if the Administration leans too far the other way, the US could end up in another situation (like that of the Shah of Iran or Batista in Cuba) in which we were in bed with a corrupt, power hungry leader who may have been corporative, but who's government lacked checks and balances, sustainability, efficiency and respect for human rights. Ultimately, that type of governments doesn't last. Will the Obama Administration be able to walk the line? Will the new Afghan government endure? More importantly, when this all shakes out, will AfPak be a US ally?

One of the Readings

Link Here

Read from the page it directs you through page 219 (the beginning of the next article)

China agrees to Iran sanctions

China says it will support sanctions on Iran. This appears to be a very impressive piece of diplomacy by the Obama administration to get first Russia and now the very recalcitrant China to sign on to sanctions against Iran. I wonder how China was persuaded. Nothing fundamentally has changed recently that would move China toward sanctions. So what were the back room negotiations like? Did the US offer something in return to China? (as many people saw the end to the Star Wars missile defense systems with Russia as a way to get the Russians on board with Iran sanctions).