Demilitarize This!

Obama’s speech in Cairo threw down the gauntlet for Israeli leaders to respond.  The New York Times observed that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech was as much done for the Israeli evening news as it was for the Obama administration.  I found it boring, infuriating, and tend to agree with Aliyana Traison of Haaretz that it was full of “vague validations” and “vows to break”. Netanyahu’s principles and conditions were presented in categorical, take-it-or-leave-it terms. He ignored the various Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over the past two decades, under three American presidents, which were designed to attempt to resolve precisely the vexed issues of recognition, demilitarisation, borders, Jerusalem and refugees. (The Economist)

Many look to Netanyahu’s use of the term “Palestinian state” as a sign of hope for an end to the occupation and the ground work for going through with a two-state solution. But I don’t see how any of that could be true. Yes, he used the word “state” but I couldn’t find anything to demonstrate his willingness to see a Palestinian state that corresponded with any of the major negotations that have taken place over the decades.

“‘Benjamin Netanyahu spoke about negotiations, but left us with nothing to negotiate as he systematically took nearly every permanent status issue off the table,’ Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian negotiator, said in a statement. ‘Nor did he accept a Palestinian state. Instead, he announced a series of conditions and qualifications that render a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian state impossible.’ (Kershner)

For starters, Israeli settlements will not be frozen as Obama had declared should be done in Cairo.* Though Netanyahu pledged not to build new settlements or to appropriate more land; he did insist that “normal life” must continue in the existing settlements. Which of course is code for continued building there. (Economist) Famed Israeli author, and one of my personal favorites, Amos Oz describes the Israeli settlements as a fight over what exactly the Jewish civilization is.

” [If the settlers] succeed in their cause, they may drag both me and my children with them, to kill and to die in a perpetual and unnecessary war, or perhaps turn Israel into a monster like Belfast, Rhodesia, or South Africa. For this argument is not an intellectual exercise: it is a matter of life and death, pure and simple.” (In the Land of Israel)

Another key issue is the Palestinian refugee situation and the right of return. Netanyahu explicitly stated that the refugee problem must be resolved outside Israel’s borders and any demand to resettle refugees within Israel undermined Israel as a state for the Jewish people. (BBC) Certainly I don’t think it would be at all possible to guarantee every refugee a right to return, but there must be concessions on both sides to recognize the injustice committed against Palestinian refugees and a recognition of Israel as a Jewish state so that we may look to compensation and reconciliation for the refugees. Indeed the recognition of Israel’s Jewish character is important. Israelis already are in heated debates over what this Jewish character means, but there can be no denying that Israel has a right to exist and that it is Jewish.

Hands down, my favorite analysis of the speech coupled with some reccomendations for what to do next comes from the author I mentioned earlier, Aliyana Traison. Traison writes that in return for the Palestinian Authority recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, Israel must create a concrete plan of withdrawal from parts of the West Bank. She also added that if Palestine is to be demilitarized, “then Israel would have to compromise for denying a sovereign democracy the right of defense. Israel and Palestine must therefore sign a pact of non-aggression as a concession for a demilitarized state.”

Perhaps this speech has taken the entire negotiation process many steps back, or maybe it was Netanyahu’s election that did that. In any case, it is not hard to lose hope for a sustainable peace anytime soon. I grumbled as I felt myself growing more cynical after reading Eric Alterman’s piece on the Daily Beast.

“As difficult as it may appear to be to make peace with a corrupt and potentially powerless Palestinian Authority and a hostile Hamas, Israel’s other choices are actually worse; either to expel millions of Palestinians from their lands to preserve the state’s Jewish character or give up on democratic rule entirely, embracing a nightmare future much like that in South Africa under apartheid. Barack Obama offered Bibi Netanyahu an escape hatch, perhaps the last one Israel is likely to see while the conflict remains potentially solvable. Absent the pomp and circumstance, Netanyahu’s response could hardly have been clearer: ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’”

But in the midst of all this pessimism, I look at the work of Just Vision and all the various people they have encountered and I become the wide eyed idealist youth again. Israelis and Palestinians who have lost homes, lives, daughters, sons, been imprisoned, been beaten down yet still continue to struggle for peace by nonviolence and reconciliation. They’re just ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances that many of us might let corrupt our sense of humanity and compassion, and yet they are not. So I encourage you, my readers, whenever you comes across a piece of news that makes you think peace will never happen because nobody is willing to work for it visit Just Vision’s website and read any of the interviews they have done with these everyday heroes.**

Notes and Sources

*At this point I want to say that the American policy has been fairly consistent in opposing at least the expansion of the settlements. So this cannot be said to be an “Obama thing”

**That might have been uncomfortably cheesy, but hopefully you’ll check out Just Vision despite my word-fail

1. Aliyana Traison, “Demilitarized Palestine? Just sign this non-aggression pact first“, Haaretz
2. The Economist, “Israel and Palestine: A change of heart?“
3. Isabel Kershner, “Netanyahu Backs Palestinian State, With Caveats“, New York Times
4. Amos Oz, In the Land of Israel, p.127
5. BBC News, Israel sets terms for Palestinian state
6. Eric Alterman, “BiBi’s Bait-and-Switch“, The Daily Beast

Sri Lankan Clash of Identities

As per my resolution to cover a wide breadth of topics, I’ve delved myself into the conflict in Sri Lanka. And yes, most of my reasons for doing so also have to do with my idolization of Sri Lankan-British rapper and popstar extraordinaire MIA. I suppose I’ve also been inspired to learn more by the disturbing death toll headlines that have been filling many of the major global news outlets.

The Makings of Ethnic, Religious, and Linguistic Strife

It is believed that the Tamils, originally from South India, appeared in the north and East of Sri Lanka some time before the 10th century. Others argue that the Tamils had no organized society until after 10th century while even more argue that they are the original inhabitants of the island of Sri Lanka. Given all the political and social strife, its easy to see how such various historical narratives become entrenched in identity politics and become such controversial issues.

The Sinhala, or “people of the lion”, are the mjaority ethnic group Sri Lanka and are predominantly Buddhist. According to Sinhalese historical narratives, the Buddha himself entrusted the Sinhala with the island as guardians of his teachings. (Spencer 3)

Although the categories “Sinhala” and “Tamil” are not colonial inventions, some of the current ethno-religious tensions have a root in colonial and post colonial reconstruction. In the Victorian era, the predominant racial theory was that the world was divided into different “kinds” of people. So in the set up of local colonial governments in Sri Lanka, groups had to prove their ethnic distinctiveness in order to gain representation. Spencer’s example is that of the Muslim Tamils who began to assert their Arab descendancy in order to gain representation that was more than just Tamil. (Spencer 8-9)   During British colonial rule, the Tamils were seen as collaborators and believed to get special treatments from the colonizers. (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam)

Though the fault lines between populations in Sri Lanka during the colonial period were religious, today’s divisions are defined by language. It is no longer Catholics (yes, there are Catholics) against Hindus and Buddhists, but Tamil Catholics against Sinhala Catholics, etc. (Spencer 8 )

Civil Blood

The civil war that has been raging in Sri Lanka for decades began in the 1970’s as Tamil rebels began to push for their own state, Eelam. These rebels, the Liberation Tigers for Tamil Eelam or Tamil Tigers, enjoyed a firm hold on the north and east regions of the island for many years. The civil war in Sri Lanka ranks as South Asia’s longest in the modern era. It his displaced thousands, left large areas uninhabitable because of landmines and explosive debris, laid waste to agricultural land, contributed to malnutrition, weakened the state’s ability to deal with natural disasters like the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, and even seen the use of child soldiers as young as nine. (Sri Lanka Conflict)

History: I Owns It

Though the two sides disagree bitterly on many things, Jonathan Spencer, an anthropologist at the University of Edinburgh, finds one clear consensus: “present conflicts can only be explained by reference to the past”. (3) What has contributed to the Tamil real or imagined feelings of persecution is the single interpretation of Sri Lanka’s past according to the Buddhist Sinhalas.

“[Nationalism] is not what it seems, and above all it is not what it seems to itself. The cultures it claims to defend and revive are often its own inventions, or are modified out of all recognition” (Spencer 10)

Present Day Carnage

Although a cease-fire was declared in 2002, violence flared up again in 2005. What’s filling the headlines today is the Sinhalese government’s assault on the rebels which has given them control over those north and east regions for the first time in years. As a conventional military force, the Tamil Tigers are through with much of their leadership having been destroyed. Much of these achievements are due to the rise of President Rajapakse in 2005 and his increased focus on defense. However, this is not a victory, for either side, by far.

The conflict has now killed well in excess of 70,000 people, displaced tens of thousands more and held back the island’s growth and economic development. The death toll of civilians in 2009 overall could run into the thousands, the UN and aid agencies say…The manner in which they pursued their military victory – ignoring international calls for restraint – may have radicalised a new generation of Tamils, both on the island and in the diaspora in Europe, Asia and North America. (Q&A: Sri Lanka conflict)

As the conflict continues to fill the headlines, I will keep on top of it as best I can and bring you all unique and dynamic ideas on bringing about a resolution.

Sources

1. Jonathan Spencer, Sri Lanka: History and the Roots of Conflict, Routledge (1990)
2. Preeti Bhattacharji, “Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam“, Council on Foreign Relations (2009)
3. Reuters AlertNet, “Sri Lanka Conflict”
4. BBC News, “Q&A: Sri Lanka conflict“

Prose, Violence, and Problems with Aslan’s Cosmic War

In a post-college world, looking at grad school and gainful employment on the horizon, it appears I need to step up my reading habits. So in an effort to make this a more regular segment of the blog, I’m going to read and review at least one book a month. This month, I bring to you How To Win a Cosmic War by Reza Aslan, author of No God But God,  who was one of my favorite Islamic authors when I was just starting out in the field.

He’s a young articulate scholar of religion and so its no wonder he’s been invited to the Daily Show and the Colbert Report a few times as well as numerous other media appearances. While I’m happy that there is such an Islamic scholar who’s so acceptable and successful in mainstream America, I continuously wonder whether or not he is someone I would want representing myself, my colleagues, and other academics in the field of religion, Islam, and global affairs.

The Premise

In Aslan’s own words, the book is a proclamation:

The War on Terror, conceived by the previous administration as a cosmic contest between the forces of good and evil for the future of civilization, is over. It is time to strip this ideological conflict of its religious connotations, to reject the religiously polarizing rhetoric of our leaders and theirs, to focus on the material matters at stake, and to address the earthly issues that always lie behind the cosmic impulse…Because in the end, there is only one way to win a cosmic war: refuse to fight in it. (11)

After taking a hard, unpleasant look at the plight of European Muslims, Aslan declares that America now has a great opportunity to become the champions of the slaughtered and reframe the War on Terror not as a war between good and evil, but an “earthly contest between the advocates of freedom and the agents of oppression”. He declares that Bush was right, only democratic reform can defeat the Global Jihadists. America must “strive to create an open religious and political environment in the Muslim world that will blunt the appeal of Jihadist ideologies”.

Honestly, when I first heard that was what the book was about, my initial reaction was that this topic has been done…like five years ago. My own personal favorite is of course Dr. Akbar Ahmed’s Islam Under Siege. With the War on Terror being in its eigth year now and the Bush Administration a thing of the past, do we really need another study on violent Islamic fundamentalism and the mistakes the US has made in dealing with it? I decided it was worth it to see if he could add anything new. Cosmic War unfortunately fails to deliver on that front, but it absolutely delivers on Aslan’s many talents as a writer.

Violence, Its Like, Whatever

Speaking as someone who’s undergraduate studies frequently lead me to explore the relationship between religion and conflict, I also was fairly disappointed that much of Aslan’s look at the role of Islam and religion in general dealt with only with its destructive aspects. I was even more deeply disturbed by the brevity of his nod to Gandhi and the Civil Rights Movement.

Religion of course can be just as effective in promoting nonviolence and civil disobedience, as was the case with America’s civil right’s movement or India’s movement for independence from Britain. But for movements that operate in societies where democratic institutions are either wholly absent or brutally repressed by the ruling regime, countries where legitimate opposition is simply not allowed, collective violence may be the sole means for a social movement to pursue its goals of radical social transformation. (137)**

It is my belief that these societies are in the most need of nonviolent social movements. While it is certainly understandable that the populations under such regimes would accept collective violence as the best means of affecting change, it is becoming increasingly clear that the only way to break these cycles of brutality is through nonviolence. What’s more, I think the author is dangerously close to diminishing the brutality that the groups involved in the Civil Rights Movement and India’s demand for indepence were up against.

The Hype of Moderate Islam

If the Islamic fundamentalism that is implied is the extremist violent and intolerant kind, the one Bin Laden has become the icon of, then its polar opposite is not secularism or even “moderate” Islamism. These are near antonyms, many steps removed but not completely antithetical. The true opposite is a tolerant and nonviolent Islamic fundamentalism, militarism for peace.

Chaiwat Satha-Anand, a Thai expert on nonviolence and Islam, argues that because of the nature of modern warfare, nonviolence is not just the best option, but also the only option. If the violence used cannot discriminate between soldiers (real or self-identified) and civilians, then it is not keeping with Islamic principles. With modern technology being what it is,  that kind of discrimination virtually impossible at present. (Islam and Nonviolence)

One of my favorite quotes on the subject comes from Michael N. Nagler, whom I discovered while reading Mohamed Abu Nimer’s (one of my favorite former professors) seminal work on nonviolence and Islam:

There is no theological reason that an Islamic society could not take a lead in developing nonviolence today, and there is every reason that some of them should. (War and Its Discontents)

The Verdict

How To Win A Cosmic War, while artfully and thoughtfully written, but it reads a bit like a jumbled mess of good but inadequately explored ideas. It jumps from the author’s own experiences in becoming an American citizen to the Arab-Israeli conflict to the hardships of Muslims in Western Europe without ever really tying it all together in a satisfying way. Even the epilogue feels out of place as Aslan describes his excitement at the election of Barack Obama. While certainly all such subjects have common elements, they never seemed to fit really well with the overarching theme of the dangers of buying into the violent militant’s black and white cosmic world view.

My conclusion is therefore that Mr. Aslan’s How To Win A Cosmic War is not a very good “how-to” book nor is it a comprehensive look at Islam in the Age of Globalization or the War on Terror. However, if you are in the market to read something about the current state of the world in lovely prose and fresh eyes this is the book for you.

Sources

1. Chaiwat Satha-Anand, “The Nonviolent Crescent: Eight Theses on Muslim Nonviolent Actions,” in Islam and Nonviolence, ed. Glenn D. Paige (Honolulu: Center for Global Nonviolence, 1986), 22.

2. Michael N. Nagler, “Is There a Tradition of Nonviolence in Islam?”, in War and its Discontents: Pacifism and Quietism in the Abrahamic Traditions, ed. J Patout Burns (D.C.: Geo. U. Press 1996), 165.

Notes

**It was at that point in the book I wrote in the margins “WTF?!”

Gaza Crisis: A Threat to Israeli National Character

Since I’ve been posting about humanitarian crises and the Arab-Israeli conflict has proven to be a hot topic, I’m going to post more about Israel-Palestine.

A fuel crisis has struck the Gaza Strip due to border clashes. The Israeli government has closed all border crossings in response to a rocket that launched across the border, though there were no casualties. The Israeli government has allowed a limited supply of fuel, that has been donated by the EU, to pass through at the request of Middle East Peace Quartet peace envoy, Tony Blair.

A situation like this is truly unacceptable in my opinion. It is further proof that the Occupation is having a detrimental effect on Palestinian civilians and on the Israeli national character. Without fuel, the Gaza Strip has no energy to power its homes and little energy left in reserve to power schools and hospitals.

The Palestinian militants not only put their own people at a disadvantage by shooting rockets, however failed their attempts may have been, but the Israeli government has responded with greater force to punish the entire Palestinian population unjustly.

This block is not about defense or security, it is about revenge. Punishing the Gaza population does not deter militants, it hands the militants and others a perfect justification for their hatred and continued hostility. These actions by the Israeli government threaten Israel itself, not just physically, but more important, morally.

Because I will probably be challenged about this, I’ll just say explicitly that I support Israel as a democratic and benevolent society. And I heart Jews.

Rediscovering Iraq: Triple Bombing, Working with Locals

Today, when I looked at the news headlines I saw a story about iraq. Its been a long time since I’ve paid attention to Iraq. In Fall 2006, I took a class entitled Post Saddam Iraq and it was one of the most intense classes I’ve ever taken. Since then, I’ve been largely unaware of current events though I have retained a decent amount of pre-2003 invasion Iraqi history.

So I’m going to start a little project to re-acquaint myself with what’s going on, how we’ve gotten to the places we have, and what are the plans for the future.

Al-Qaeda Strikes in Baghdad, Kills 28

A triple bombing in the capital of Baghdad has killed 28 and wounded 68. Two car bombs exploded simultaneously and as police and civilians rushed to help, a suicide bomber blew himself up. This is one of the deadliest attacks to take place in Iraq in months. The neighborhood where the bombs went off is full of tea shops and restaurants and was a popular spot for students.

Such coordinated and massive strikes have become rare but steady reminders of the capacity of militants to unleash mayhem in Iraq, even though they no longer control whole swathes of towns and villages and violence overall has fallen sharply.

Using Local Militias

The BBC reports that there are suspicions that this was an al-Qaeda attempt to reignite sectarian violence in Baghdad. Such conflict was rife throughout the city in 2006-7, but has since subsided as local militias have joined Awakening Councils set up by US forces.

The US military has been transferring control of the Awakening Council militias to the Iraqis since October 1st. The government has just begun paying the salaries of these militias. These councils, along with the US troop surge have been credited with the dramatic improvements in security.

According to the New York Times, the councils are comprised of groups of Sunnis, many who are former militants themselves, who have bonded together against the most violent Sunnis insurgents. They are also called Concerned Local Citizens, Iraqi Sunni Volunteers, and Sahwas in Arabic.

Female Suicide Bomber

A separate suicide bombing also occurred in Baquba at a checkpoint staffed by the local Awakening Council militia. Six militia members were killed and 14 were wounded. The bomber is believed to have been a 13 year old girl.

The attack by a female suicide bomber in Baquba is part of a trend that has increased this year. U.S. forces say al Qaeda Sunni Islamist militants are increasingly recruiting female bombers — often teenaged girls — to thwart security checks.

Many of the female bombers have lost male relatives and are seen as psychologically vulnerable to recruitment for suicide missions. (Reuters)

Conclusions

I was not previously aware of the existence of the councils, but I am impressed at the ability of military commanders to tap into social groups already in place to build up security. It is very encouraging to see that there are Iraqis who are committed to bringing about a change and are actively doing so. It is also very encouraging from the perspective of someone studying peacebuilding that such organizations may be extremely helpful in bringing about the security needed to rebuild Iraq.

Winning Minds in Afghanistan

Here’s a story that demonstrates that there’s much more than just a fight for security at stake in Afghanistan.

BBC reporter Jill McGivering interviewed a local shopkeeper in the province of Helmand. He says the international forces have not helped, but instead made violence worse. Asked if he would rather have the Taleban in control, he replied that it did not matter. All that mattered was security.

Its not surprising that this would be the attitude of many Afghans, who for over 30 years have known nothing but war. But it also speaks to American efforts to uproot the Taliban and bring democracy. Something obviously is not working, and I can’t say that I know what it is. What I can say is that the Afghans are in need of some kind of assurance, and if we don’t provide them with it democracy will suffer a huge blow. That assurance, I believe, won’t come from just the military but the international community and most importantly, from within.

Let us hope that President-elect Barack Obama and his administration will be able to acheive that, and keep reminding them that they must. A failed Afghanistan is a danger to all of us.

Aid and Afghanistan

Hooray! Another (self described) “crazy conservative” has responded to my blog! And its a good one. The response was to a previous post, “Human Security Over Military Security in Afghanistan?”.

Doesn’t the military presence there help a little with some of that security stuff? So shouldn’t it be we’re spending $107M a day on human security in Afghanistan? Even if you want to prorate that $100M somehow because we’re acting to advance our own interests as well, I think it should still count as helping them out to some degree.

Contrasting the two numbers as if it’s an either/or thing or a case of mixed up priorities doesn’t seem right. I seriously doubt the $2.5B a year (one of the highest rates of aid to a country in the world) could be used to very good effect to relieve suffering in Afghanistan without the (imperfect) stability provided by the miltary presence there. The Taliban didn’t seem like they were too keen on facilitating the free flow of aid in the country.

I’m not sure what goes into those figures, but my guess is a military deployment comes with a fairly high fixed cost. What with salaries and leases and food and fuel and extra wear and tear on equipment and such. So implying that we might be able to flip it or something and spend $7M a day on the military presence and $100M a day on other aid seems naive at best.

I’d also be interested to know what they’re spending that $2.5B a year in aid on. Are they able to efficiently process all that aid and get it to the right people? Is it getting siphoned off by government officials on the way down? Are their spending priorities right? Are they spending it to build a new building in the capitol when people need food out in the mountains? Do they have enough food but they aren’t able to get it to the people that need it? Are they doing everything right but they just need more? How much more?

And all of this doesn’t even begin to address things like whether aid actually works in the long run or where it should come from.

To Respond…

First let me say that I chose poorly for the title of that post. It did indeed read like an either/or situation and in retrospect, not such a great idea. Even if there was a question mark at the end.

You’re right to say that the money spent on the military is part of human security, but the $100m is being spent on one type of security and even in a very narrow way at that. As I understand it, our troops are there to defeat the Taliban and train Afghans to do so as well but to do any general policing. The American troops are not subject to the orders of the Afghan government, and the American government can only govern Afghanistan in a limited fashion and not without risking a perception of colonialism. The best way to improve all aspects of human security is to do as much as possible in each sector simultaneously and not put one over the other or even act on them one at a time.

The Need for Military and Police

While an increased international troop presence for a substantial period of time can go a long way in protecting local populations while the police forces build up, it may not be the most practical option. The region is not supportive of a prolonged US and NATO presence and their cooperation is key.

“Proposals for improving the security situation focus on sending additional international forces, building larger national security forces in Afghanistan, and training and equipping Pakistan’s security forces, which are organized for conflict with India, for domestic counterinsurgency. But none of these proposals is sufficient to meet the current, let alone future, threats…Securing Afghanistan and its region will require an international presence for many years, but only a regional diplomatic initiative that creates a consensus to place stabilizing Afghanistan ahead of other objectives could make a long-term international deployment possible.” (Ahmed and Rubin)

There is debate on whether the US and the Afghan government should seek to negotiate with some Taliban forces. But these voices acknowledge this is not the only solution and that the military is still needed even if there are negotiations. The question is whether or not such a “quick-fix” solution would yield positive long term results.

The Economist does not rule out negotiations, but takes a cautious approach:

“A more realistic strategy is to isolate the hardliners by cutting deals with individual insurgent commanders, and wooing disaffected tribal groups over to the government side. But that will not happen on a significant scale without two things: greater security, to keep the support of the population and protect those who throw in their lot with the government; and a government that looks credible, legitimate and effective enough to offer a more attractive alternative to the Taliban.” (Wobbly)

In another article from the Economist:

“There is a difference between saying there is no military solution and believing the mission is bound to fail; between trying to draw individual commanders away from the Taliban and sharing power with their leader, Mullah Omar.” (Pessimism)

The Challenge of Rebuilding

Salon writer, Damien Cave, writes that rebuilding Afghanistan is less of a nation-building project than it is a nation-creating one.

“Decades of civil war and foreign invasions have destroyed what little infrastructure previously existed, even as a two-year drought has ruined the country’s ability to feed itself. Most of the educated class that might be willing to create stable government left long ago, and even if they returned, Afghanistan has little history of self-government to fall back on. Add to all of this a rugged terrain that makes any kind of geographic cohesion extremely difficult and you end up with a quagmire that defies description.” (Cave)

If we’re going to build roads in Afghanistan, there must be more than just people with guns. There needs to be a credible, legitimate government which may very well not be Karzai’s. There is also something to be said by the danger posed by a population who has known nothing but war.

“The demographics of the country make extended war even more probable. Afghanistan today is a society of warriors, men who know nothing but war. Not only do many families have no primary breadwinner, because he’s been killed, but “for those men who are still there, the retraining mission is extremely daunting,” says Martha Brill Olcott of the Carnegie Foundation. “They’re not even military men who have experience with discipline. They’re guerrillas.” Getting them to put down their guns will require huge effort, and may not ever succeed. With a ready supply of funders and with so many caves and other places to hide, Taliban soldiers could become guerrillas once again. Even if most of the country wants peace, a small, well-armed minority could disrupt any attempt to rebuild.” (Cave)

The Role of International Aid

There should be no flipping of the numbers, from $100m a day in military and $7m in other areas to $7m in military and then $100m in other areas. Peacebuilders and nation-makers in Afghanistan cannot work without the military, and the success of the military would be extremely limited without them. I don’t know if the $100m is being spent effectively nor do I know if the $7m is being spent effectively as well. I’m not sure you or I can know some of those things, but its always a good idea to put pressure on the administration to make sure no dollar is wasted.

We do know that corruption is a major factor in the distribution of the aid. But like all forms of international aid, it is best done selectively in certain areas of life and subject to conditions. There is no one perfect fit for all countries and they must be evaluated on a case by case basis. But in all cases, the success of the aid is dependent not only on the donors but on the receivers as well. There is no question as to whether international aid in principle works, the question is when does it work best.

References

• Rashid, Ahmed and Rubin, Barnett R. “From Great Game to Grand Bargain: Ending Chaos in Afghanistan and Pakistan”. Foreign Affairs, November/December 2008.
• “No time to go wobbly“. The Economist, October 16, 2008.
• “A surge of pessimism“. The Economist, October 16, 2008.
• Cave, Damien. “Can we rebuild Afghanistan?” Salon.com

Protests Against the Taliban

I’m committed to promoting nonviolent acts that seek to publicize the nonviolent will of the people who are impacted by violent conflict. And so today, I bring you a story from Afghanistan.

People in eastern Afghanistan are demonstrating against the violence used by the Taliban against 27 young men who were pulled out of a bus by taliban forces. The Taliban executed them, saying they were military recruits. The locals say they were men looking to find work in Iran.

The killing of these young men – said to be aged between 15 and 25 – has clearly stirred up deep emotions in their home province.

Thursday was a day of mourning across Laghman. Shops were closed, flags lowered, and prayer ceremonies held.

But people also want action.

Demonstrators called on the government to bring the culprits to justice and on people in the southern region where the young men died to help track down those responsible.

We as the international community must demonstrate our readiness to hear the grievances of those who express them nonviolently and act promptly on those grievances. There is a lot of potential to use this incident and others like it to build a strong resistance to the Taliban among the Afghan people, and show them that the Taliban will not give them the justice and stability they seek.

Human Security over Military Security in Afghanistan?

We are living in such a globalized world that even the most unrelated of issues impact each dramatically. Today I am talking about the war in Afghanistan, the food crisis, and the 2008 US presidential election.

According to a BBC News article, Children in the Bamiyan province are suffering from severe malnutrition and the resources to help them are few. The hospital in Bamiyan receives no money from the Afghan government and must rely on funding from the Aga Khan Foundation. But the money it does receive is not enough to deal with the pressing needs of the malnourished. While $100 million a day is being spent on the war, only $7 million is being spent on the Afghan people. “Across the country a food crisis is looming just as the insurgency is spreading,” says Damian Grammaticas, the BBC News correpsondent.

Both McCain and Obama have stressed their committment to the war in Afghanistan as a top foreign policy priority, claiming they know how to get better results for security. Grammaticas questions whether it is more military security that is needed, or is an approach to “human security” the one that will have the greatest ripple effect?

So what is this human security? As much as I hate to direct anybody to a Wikipedia page as a reference, the page gives a good breakdown of the basic ideas and has a lot of great references. When we talk about threats to human security, we’re talking about threats in seven major areas: economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security, and political security.

The Grammaticas article focuses particularly on food security, which is also closely linked to health and environmental security. Of the impact of drought in the region he says:

To reach one of the parts of Bamiyan worst affected by drought we drove for two and a half hours deep into the central highlands.

The parched Saighan valley should have a river flowing through it

The province is home to 380,000 people spread across 14,000 sq km of mountains, but it has just 3km of tarred road.

Ours was a bone-shaking drive over a high mountain pass. For some of the way a dry riverbed doubled as a rough track.

The Saighan valley should have a river flowing through it. It is barren and parched. The earth is rock-solid and dry. The hills all around are like a moonscape, eroded away so you can see the layers of rock in browns and oranges, and greys and pinks.

Syed Shah, who is 80, and his brother Abdul Mukim showed me their fields. The two men say they have never seen it so bad.

They have 30 members of their family to feed, and they have lost three-quarters of their wheat crop.

“We have seen a little foreign aid here, but nothing very much,” Abdul told me. “Now, because of the drought everyone is just thinking about how they can survive the winter.”

One hand pump to supply water is the only outside help their village has had out of all the billions of dollars spent on Afghanistan. And now the brothers told me the Taleban are back and active in the neighbouring district.

What is the answer to all this then? The response Grammaticas received from a former Afghan finance minister was investment and a more people-focused strategy on the part of the US:

The provincial government has no grain stockpiled for the winter months

“You need to win the people over if you want to break the back of an insurgency. That approach is yet to be embraced and practically applied in Afghanistan,” he said.

“So what would you say to the next US president?” I asked him.

“I would say Mr President if we win the people, we will win this conflict.

“If we focus on the wrong objective, body count, number of insurgents who are killed, bombardment, kinetic action, it is not going to be the answer,” he said.

Commending Belligerants for Nonviolent Actions in Iraq

I was very pleased to see this article as the main headline on the BBC News website this morning. However one may feel about Shi’a cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his followers, it is imperative that nonviolent actions in Iraq be publicized and positively acknowledged.The group may condone violence, but to only talk about their expressed grievances and goals when they engage in violence only serves to reinforce the idea that this is how they will be heard.

In that spirit, I will go so far as to commend the cleric and his followers for choosing to express their opposition to an extension of the US mandate in Iraq by a mass demonstration. It is my sincere hope that more efforts like this will be done so that the Shi’a do not get left out of negotiations and that less US soldiers, contractors, and Iraqi citizens will die for political strife.The opposition itself may be unpleasant, but we must always accept an opposition when it expresses itself nonviolently.

Supporters of Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr have staged a mass demonstration in Baghdad in protest against plans to extend the US mandate in Iraq.

An estimated 50,000 protesters chanted slogans such as “Get out occupier!”.

Iraqi and US negotiators drafted the deal after months of talks but it still needs approval from Iraq’s government.

Under the agreement US troops would withdraw by 2011, and Iraq would have the right to prosecute Americans who commit crimes while off-duty.

The UN mandate for US-led coalition forces expires at the end of this year. About 144,000 of the 152,000 foreign troops deployed there are US military personnel.

Political battle

Chanting slogans and waving banners, tens of thousands of Shias, mainly young men, marched on the eastern suburb of Sadr City towards the centre of Baghdad.

Iraq regards blanket immunity for US troops as undermining its sovereignty

The BBC’s Jim Muir in Baghdad says Moqtada Sadr’s militant opposition to the US presence has strong grassroots support among many Shias – and this was a physical manifestation of that opposition.

He says leaders of the 30-strong Sadr bloc in the Iraqi parliament will have expressed that rejection at a meeting of Iraq’s Political Council for National Security late on Friday.

The meeting of top political leaders and the heads of parliamentary factions was convened to discuss the draft agreement covering the US military presence after its mandate expires.

No decisions were taken but the Council is to meet again to hear back from military experts on what is a very complex and detailed document.

Our correspondent says its passage through parliament may follow naturally if it is approved by the Council, but this is by no means assured and a tough political battle is already shaping up.

In Washington, US defence chief Robert Gates has been courting support for the deal from key members of Congress – although their approval is not mandatory.