Friday, March 29, 2024
02:37 AM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > General > News & Articles > Foreign Newspapers

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old Wednesday, July 20, 2011
falconer's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: city of mountains
Posts: 121
Thanks: 174
Thanked 49 Times in 25 Posts
falconer is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Council on Foreign Relations

The Fallout from the CIA’s Vaccination Ploy in Pakistan

The reaction from public health workers was understandably fierce when the Guardian reported last week that the CIA had staged a vaccination campaign in an attempt to confirm Osama bin Laden's location by obtaining DNA from his family members. We recognize the importance of the mission to bring bin Laden to justice. But the CIA's reckless tactics could have catastrophic consequences.

The CIA's plot — recruiting a Pakistani doctor to distribute hepatitis vaccines in Abbottabad this spring — destroyed credibility that wasn't its to erode. It was the very trust that communities worldwide have in immunization programs that made vaccinations an appealing ruse. But intelligence officials imprudently burned bridges that took years for health workers to build.

A U.S. official was quoted last week as saying that “People need to put this into some perspective” and that “If the United States hadn't shown this kind of creativity, people would be . . . asking why it hadn't used all tools at its disposal to find bin Laden.”

Those searching for perspective should consider some facts about global health.

To start, the CIA's actions may have jeopardized the global polio eradication program, which has saved thousands of lives and in which billions of dollars have been invested. Americans could one day be at risk again from re-imported polio.

Many Pakistani communities suffer from preventable infections, including ones that have been brought under control or eradicated elsewhere. Pakistan is the last place on Earth where wild polio still spreads in local outbreaks. Only a handful of places elsewhere in the world have sporadic cases, and vaccine campaigns are vigorous in those areas. But if the Rotary Club, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, governments and others working to eradicate polio realize their aspirations, Pakistan is where victory will be pronounced.

Complicating matters is the fact that Pakistan recently dissolved its Ministry of Health, which has left international programs to negotiate directly with local leaders. Many such leaders may be inclined to distrust doctors or to believe that vaccination programs are CIA ploys designed to hurt their communities.

Few issues have proven as historically sensitive for global health practitioners as building trust around vaccines, especially for polio, within Muslim communities. About eight years ago in northern Nigeria, mass refusals of polio vaccines led to a resurgence of cases locally. The infection then spread beyond Nigeria's borders. Distrust in the vaccine stemmed from Internet rumors that the vaccine was sterilizing people or spreading HIV; some of these claims were fueled by local religious leaders. It took years of negotiation and education for the World Health Organization, UNICEF and other health agencies to counter the conspiracy theories and regain trust about childhood vaccination.

Trust is both fragile and essential for successful global health outcomes. In Afghanistan, where colleagues of ours are helping to rebuild the national health system, locals often link trust in health services with security — in other words, they trust clinics because they believe they are safe places. But health workers there and in Pakistan may now be suspect or seen as spies. People throughout the region may reject vaccines out of politically derived fear. Health efforts beyond vaccination, including those aimed at reducing maternal mortality rates and bringing safe drinking water to millions of rural residents, could be imperiled.

Criticism of the CIA's actions is justified, but a continued focus on condemnation serves no one. Before the betrayal devolves into a public health crisis, President Obama and leaders in Congress should acknowledge the damage to global health efforts and commit to repairing the trust. They should begin where the need is most urgent: Pakistan. They should make clear to regional leaders that despite cuts in foreign aid and U.S. support for the Pakistani military, Americans will not walk away from their region's poor, their needy children, or commitments to stopping the spread of deadly diseases.

Orin Levine is executive director of the International Vaccine Access Center and an associate professor of international health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Laurie Garrett is a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of “Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health.”


(Authors:
Orin Levine, Executive Director, International Vaccine Access Center and Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Laurie Garrett, Senior Fellow for Global Health)
__________________
paesh
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Wednesday, July 20, 2011
falconer's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: city of mountains
Posts: 121
Thanks: 174
Thanked 49 Times in 25 Posts
falconer is on a distinguished road
Default Tremors from 'AfPak' Border

Tremors from 'AfPak' Border

Pakistani troops backed by gunship helicopters launched an offensive against Taliban fighters (Nation) in the Kurram tribal agency bordering Afghanistan, a staging area for militant attacks against U.S. forces as well as Pakistan's army. And in the latest of a series of alleged cross-border attacks (VOA), Pakistan says Afghan Taliban militants attacked a checkpoint, while Afghan government officials report an increase in shelling of their villages from the Pakistani military. These new tensions in the volatile Afghanistan-Pakistan border area, along with growing internal Pakistan divisions over confronting militants, are adding to unease among U.S. policymakers and experts about the possible regional fallout of the upcoming phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

The latest developments highlight the complexity of the conflict in Pakistan's border region, which has direct impact on security in neighboring Afghanistan. The Kurram operation follows reports that the al-Qaeda-linked Haqqani network had reached a truce with local militants to use the area as a transit point to launch attacks against NATO forces (AP) across the border. But some analysts believe the offensive is directed at Pakistani Taliban fighters, who have targeted Pakistan's security forces. Despite pressure from the United States, Pakistan is hesitant to target the Haqqanis because of historical ties to the group. The Pakistani military nurtures a range of militant groups (NYT) as part of a strategy of using proxies against its neighbors and U.S. forces in Afghanistan, although that approach is being question by some of the fighters it trained, reports the New York Times.

Three prominent U.S. officials in Afghanistan--U.S. Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry, General David Petraeus and Lieutenant General David M. Rodriquez--are all leaving or due to leave shortly. Each has raised questions (NYT) about whether Afghan security forces will be able to protect the country and about Pakistan's intentions. CFR's Stephen Biddle is concerned by "hedging behaviors by Afghans and Pakistanis that make governance reform in Afghanistan very hard and that make progress against Taliban base camps in Pakistan very hard."

Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ) have expressed concern that the withdrawal will mean a loss of momentum (WSJ) in Afghanistan. Afghans themselves are worried about a resurgence of the Taliban and that the country could collapse into civil war, writes Fotini Christia on ForeignAffairs.com.

Some experts, such as the Carnegie Endowment's Ashley J. Tellis, argue that the U.S. special forces raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May "exploded the idea of a 'strategic partnership'" necessary for the fight against Islamist extremist groups and also weakened the internal credibility of Pakistan's army. But CFR's Daniel Markey notes an opportunity in the current crisis to improve U.S.-Pakistan relations. A chief element should be a purging of Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) officers suspected of providing support or safe haven to extremists, Markey says. U.S. concerns about the ISI are highlighted by reports that the Obama administration suspects the agency's involvement in the killing of a Pakistani journalist (NYT) who had reported on the infiltration of militants into the military.

Others argue, however, that it's unlikely the United States will ever be able to build a secure Afghanistan. The honest way to leave the country, argues commentator Peter Beinart in the Daily Beast "is to acknowledge that the Afghanistan we leave behind will be a chaotic, ugly place where the Taliban rules large swaths of the country, and much of what we have built may be washed away."
__________________
paesh
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Wednesday, July 20, 2011
falconer's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: city of mountains
Posts: 121
Thanks: 174
Thanked 49 Times in 25 Posts
falconer is on a distinguished road
Default How Cuts Affect U.S.-Pakistan Ties

How Cuts Affect U.S.-Pakistan Ties


The Obama administration is putting the screws to Pakistan, cutting roughly 40 percent of U.S. military assistance (NYT) and publicly challenging the activities of Pakistan's intelligence service (ISI). The question is: Will these coercive efforts pay dividends, or will they contribute to a downward spiral in U.S.-Pakistan relations?

The answer depends on whether Washington's actions are embedded in a comprehensive strategy, or if they are merely ad hoc reactions to Pakistan's frustrating policies since the May 2 U.S. raid on Osama bin Laden's Abbottabad compound.

Islamabad and Washington have lurched from crisis to crisis all year. At root, the two sides continue to have fundamental disagreements over Pakistan's continued use of militant proxy forces as "strategic assets" in neighboring Afghanistan and India. Washington believes Pakistan remains only a partial partner, fighting some terrorists tooth and nail, while turning a blind eye to others. U.S. officials have evidence (NYT) that parts of the ISI are particularly untrustworthy.

Alone, cutting U.S. military assistance will not force Pakistan to reassess its strategic posture. Pakistan's generals probably benefit from the assistance more than they claim, but they can also do without it. And anti-American sentiment in Pakistan is so intense at the moment, including within the ranks of the army, that Pakistan's generals can hardly appear to bow before U.S. pressure. So if Obama administration officials believe that assistance cuts and public rebukes offer enough leverage to coerce a Pakistani about-face, they will be sorely disappointed.

That said, if Washington's harder line is being taken within the context of a more comprehensive strategy that includes other points of U.S. influence, then this deeper slide in military-to-military relations might be worth suffering.

The United States has leverage in Afghanistan, where U.S. Special Forces can strike a number of the militant groups that have had longstanding ties to the Pakistani state, especially the Haqqani network, in an effort to demonstrate to Islamabad that these groups cannot advance its interests in the region. Washington can also step up efforts to lobby Pakistan's close allies in Beijing and Riyadh to express their own concerns about the ISI's reckless behavior in quiet dialogues with Pakistan's leaders. Finally, Washington can explain to a range of influential Pakistanis that the U.S. goal is not to engineer a break with Pakistan, but to put the relationship on firmer ground.

Even if all these steps are taken, U.S.-Pakistan relations could be heading from bad to worse. In the near term, this will complicate U.S. counterterror missions and the war effort in Afghanistan. Over the long haul, it increases the chances that we will face a nuclear-armed Pakistani state that is increasingly fragile and at odds with America.

(Author:
Daniel Markey, Senior Fellow for India, Pakistan, and South Asia
)
__________________
paesh
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Wednesday, September 07, 2011
falconer's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: city of mountains
Posts: 121
Thanks: 174
Thanked 49 Times in 25 Posts
falconer is on a distinguished road
Default A New Chapter for U.S.-Pakistan Relations?



A New Chapter for U.S.-Pakistan Relations?


Pakistan's arrest of three men (Dawn) it identified as senior operatives of terrorist organization al-Qaeda is being touted as a sign of renewed cooperation between Washington and Islamabad after months of tense relations. A statement by the Pakistani military said the operation conducted by the country's top military spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was made possible with the "technical assistance" of U.S. intelligence agencies. The White House too hailed the capture (NYT) of the men, who were allegedly planning attacks on U.S. and other Western targets, as a sign of collaboration.
This is a significant shift in tone on both sides following fallout in relations, especially between the intelligence services. The stability of nuclear-armed Pakistan is essential to regional security, as well as to U.S. counterterrorism efforts and to a successful outcome of the war in Afghanistan. The relations suffered a setback in January when a CIA contractor shot and killed two Pakistani men in Lahore, and deteriorated further after the May 2 unilateral raid by U.S. Navy SEALs in a Pakistani town which killed al-Qaeda's top leader Osama bin Laden. Following the raid, Islamabad ordered all U.S. military trainers to leave the country and in July, Washington announced it was withholding $800 million in aid to the Pakistani military.
Despite the new sign of cooperation, issues of mistrust remain. U.S. officials continue to suspect ISI's links (BBC) with militant groups targeting U.S. forces in Afghanistan such as the Haqqani network. Also, U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan's northwest region along the Afghan border tend to draw harsh criticism from Pakistani officials in public.
Although U.S. successes against al-Qaeda have limited its capacity to unilaterally attack the United States, the threat from al-Qaeda working with or through associated militant outfits in Pakistan remains, says terrorism expert Stephen Tankel in this CFR Contingency Planning Memo. A terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland postmarked Pakistan, he adds, would severely strain U.S.-Pakistan relations and have implications for U.S. operations in Afghanistan.
U.S. strategy in Afghanistan remains a sticking point between the United States and Pakistan. A joint report by the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Pakistan-based Jinnah Institute finds that Pakistan's foreign policy elite and senior politicians perceive Washington's Afghanistan strategy "to be largely inconsistent with Pakistan's interests." One concern for the Pakistanis is a continued U.S. security presence in the region post-2014, which may entail retaining military bases in Afghanistan and using them for counterterrorism missions against al-Qaeda and other high value targets in Pakistan.
In a CFR report, South Asia expert Daniel Markey argues, "Washington must make its strategy in Afghanistan consistent with its approach to Pakistan." He says the U.S. military surge in Afghanistan should be pursued along with a special emphasis on weakening militants with bases in Pakistan to delineate "irreconcilable" Afghan insurgents from "reconcilable," those who may eventually have a seat at the negotiating table.
Besides a more streamlined and a transparent counterterrorism strategy, many analysts have called for a more comprehensive U.S. agenda prioritizing economic growth and civilian institution-building in Pakistan. A report from the New America Foundation (PDF) calls for a shift in U.S. support from aid to trade and investment, engaging with the Pakistani public and institutions at all levels of governance, including easing restrictions on travel visas and intensifying support for regional peace building through improved India-Pakistan relations.
(Author: Jayshree Bajoria, Senior Staff Writer )
__________________
paesh
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Wednesday, September 07, 2011
falconer's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: city of mountains
Posts: 121
Thanks: 174
Thanked 49 Times in 25 Posts
falconer is on a distinguished road
Default U.S. Institute of Peace: Pakistan, the United States, and the End Game in Afghanistan

U.S. Institute of Peace: Pakistan, the United States, and the End Game in Afghanistan: Perceptions of Pakistan's Foreign Policy Elite


This brief by the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Jinnah Institute in Pakistan, summarizes the perceptions of Pakistani foreign policy elite about Pakistan's strategy and interests in Afghanistan, its view of the impending "end game," and the implications of its policies towards afghanistan for the U.S.- Pakistan relationship.
As the so-called “end game” in Afghanistan approaches, the momentum is growing to find an amicable solution to the conflict. The U.S. and other troop contributing countries are committed to transferring primary security responsibilities to Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) by December 2014. While an internal consensus among Afghan actors remains the most crucial element of any settlement, regional players also have an important role to play in facilitating progress. Among them, Pakistan’s role is pivotal.
This brief captures the perceptions of Pakistani foreign policy elite who were invited to participate in roundtable discussions and interviews as part of the USIP-JI project described in the summary above. Given Pakistan’s centrality, such an exercise holds tremendous value for those grappling to identify ways to secure a successful transition in Afghanistan.
Specifically, the USIP-JI project focused on four themes:
i. America’s evolving strategy in Afghanistan;
ii. Pakistan’s short-term and long-term interests in Afghanistan; and how Pakistan is pursuing these interests;
iii. In light of America’s strategy and its implications for Afghanistan and the region, how can Pakistan best pursue its interests going forward;
iv. Policies that the U.S., Afghanistan, India (and other regional actors) would have to pursue or accept for Pakistani objectives to be met.
Project findings are based on discussions with a wide spectrum of Pakistan’s foreign policy elite—retired civilian and military officials, analysts, journalists and civil society practitioners—with established expertise on Afghanistan and/or with knowledge of the modalities of policymaking in the U.S. The project also solicited views of senior politicians.
__________________
paesh
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Wednesday, September 07, 2011
falconer's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: city of mountains
Posts: 121
Thanks: 174
Thanked 49 Times in 25 Posts
falconer is on a distinguished road
Default Prime Time for Pakistan's Military


Prime Time for Pakistan's Military


Pakistan’s army chief, General Ashraf Kayani, is in the US this week leading the delegation that will reopen ministerial-level talks with the Obama administration.

For all the talk of ensuring that the civilian government in Islamabad is strengthened vis-a-vis the military - which the US Congress has even mandated certification from the secretary of state - the Obama administration has completely shifted the balance of power in favor of the army in Pakistan.

Kayani has emerged as the most important player, and indeed he is relishing his role. He has sidelined President Asif Ali Zardari; he has reneged on the understating reached between India and Pakistan under former president Pervez Musharraf; he has made it amply clear that the Pakistani government cannot be allowed to settle the Kashmir dispute by making the Line of Control irrelevant; more damagingly, he has stirred up the non-issue of water to justify the Pakistan Army’s India-centric defense posture.

This is undoubtedly the army’s moment. It is feeling that after years of marginalization, the US needs it more than ever. More significantly, a perception is gaining ground that it is winning in shaping the strategic map of the region for the furtherance of its own interests.

By making its desperation to leave Afghanistan apparent, the Obama administration has provided a sense of indispensability to the Pakistani military. The West can only leave early and save face if it is able to bring the so-called moderate Taliban to the negotiating table. The Pakistani security establishment, which has been somewhat of a patron of the Taliban for the last two decades, therefore becomes a crucial conduit for the West to come to an understanding with the Taliban.

Of course, the Pakistani military would not be playing this role without getting something substantial in return. And the demands are growing louder and will be underlined during Kayani’s visit to Washington this week. It is he who has organized the agenda of these talks and given instructions to Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi.

Pakistan has made it clear time and again that only Islamabad and Rawalpindi can bring the Afghan Taliban into the political mainstream. It captured Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a senior Taliban leader, to sabotage the UN’s direct back-channel negotiations with Baradar’s faction of the Taliban. The Pakistani military wants to retain its central role in mediation efforts at all costs. It has tried to showcase its efficacy by fighting the Pakistani Taliban for the past nine months in Swat and South Waziristan. Now it would like to be compensated.

India’s role in Afghanistan will be under scrutiny in Washington. The Pakistani military will not allow India’s increasing role in the training of Afghan forces, and indeed has made a counteroffer to do the job itself. Getting India out of Afghanistan will be the top priority for Rawalpindi.

Ever since the US-India civilian nuclear energy cooperation agreement, the Pakistani establishment has been demanding a similar deal from the US. After explicitly rejecting such demands for long, the Obama administration might also be changing its position on this critical issue. US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson has been reported to have suggested that the US was “beginning to have a discussion with the Pakistan government” on the country’s desire to tap nuclear energy.

Though it is unlikely that there will be any movement on this issue soon, the Obama administration clearly is not in a position to ignore the demands of the Pakistani security establishment at this critical juncture in its Afghanistan endeavour.

The biggest challenge comes from the rapid ascendancy of the Pakistani military in the nation’s power structure and as a corollary in shaping Pakistan’s strategic agenda in recent months. Instead of helping the civilian government to get traction, Washington itself has pulled the rug from under its doddering feet.

By relying on the Pakistani military to secure its short-term ends in Afghanistan, the US has made sure that the fundamental malaise afflicting Pakistan – the militarisation of the state – will continue to afflict Pakistan and will grave implications for sustainable long-term peace in South Asia.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________
paesh
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Thursday, October 20, 2011
falconer's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: city of mountains
Posts: 121
Thanks: 174
Thanked 49 Times in 25 Posts
falconer is on a distinguished road
Default Occupy Wall Street's Global Echo

Occupy Wall Street's Global Echo

The Occupy Wall Street protests that began in New York City a month ago gained worldwide momentum (CBS/AP) over the weekend, as hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in nine hundred cities protested corporate greed and wealth inequality. Protesters from London to Sydney echoed the anti-capitalist, populist rhetoric of the Occupy movement in what was deemed a "global day of protest" (TIME).

The unrest comes amid a mounting European sovereign debt crisis, which has contributed to ongoing market volatility and fears of another global economic recession. Governments around the world--particularly in the indebted eurozone periphery--have implemented harsh austerity programs, making economic growth all but impossible. In the United States, anger at Wall Street bankers seen as responsible for the global financial crisis--and at the government, for bailing out the banks with taxpayer money--is exacerbated by a persistently dismal job market.

The U.S. unemployment rate has remained stubbornly above 9 percent; in the United Kingdom, unemployment has risen to above 8 percent; and in the eurozone, it continues to hover around 10 percent. Protesters question why bankers and financial heavyweights--what the protesters call the "1 percent"--are earning more money than ever, while average workers--the "other 99 percent"--are struggling to make a living wage.

Critics of the Occupy protesters say they are naïve and incoherent; others accuse them of being anything from Communists to anarchists (HuffPost). However, many proponents see the Occupy movement as a nascent populist counterweight to the right wing Tea Party movement. The Occupy protesters "represent a genuine spark of grassroots political action--a chance, finally, to redeem the promise of Obama's 2008 campaign ," write John B. Judis and Jonathan Cohn in the New Republic. But Cornell University professor Sidney Tarrow cautions against seeing the Occupy movement through the lens of the Tea Party. The former, Tarrow writes in Foreign Affairs, has few policy plans and is comprised of a "shifting configuration of supporters."

Still, President Barack Obama--who received sizable campaign contributions from Wall Street during the 2008 election--sought to tap into the movement's energy this weekend, gently lending it credence (Bloomberg) ."The unemployed worker," he said, "can rightly challenge the excesses of Wall Street without demonizing all who work there."

Even corporate leaders (FT) targeted by the Occupy movement have expressed cautious sympathy with the protesters. Two scions of capitalism--Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf and General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt--both said on Monday that they understood the anger driving the Occupy demonstrators. "If employment comes down, people will feel better," Immelt said.

European leaders were more unequivocal in their support of the weekend protesters, openly commiserating with widespread anger (DerSpiegel) at the continent's big banks. German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble said he was taking the protests "very seriously," while incoming European Central Bank President Mario Draghi said, "The young people have a right to be furious." In the UK, Foreign Minister William Hague acknowledged, "in the banking system a lot has gone wrong." The protests in Europe have an even greater sense of urgency than in the United States, as policymakers call for the recapitalization of European banks to avoid sovereign debt contagion from Greece.

While the Occupy protesters and their offshoots may not articulate a clear set of policy objectives, "their mere existence shows that people are determined to think globally about routes out of this crisis," argues the BBC's Paul Mason . Writing in the Daily Beast, Peter Beinart comments that the movement is gaining strength as a result of its "global nature." While that doesn't mean the protesters have a "clear critique of unregulated capitalism yet, let alone a concrete agenda for reform," it signals that the left "finally is forcing those questions onto the public agenda."

By contrast, Will Marshall argues in the New Republic , that the Occupy protesters will only exacerbate ideological tensions and partisanship in American political life. Marshall says the protests are being hijacked by the "usual congeries of lefty fringe groups," which undermine their message that the United States is becoming increasingly economically unequal. Meanwhile, the Weekly Standard's Daniel Halper dismisses the protesters as "hooligans" and "criminals," lumping together a minority of violent opportunists with the majority of peaceable demonstrators.

However, as the Occupy movement becomes more global, its supporters are becoming more politically diverse. As Erik Tarloff writes in the Atlantic, the lack of political cohesion is perhaps irrelevant. "What does matter is that popular refusal to tolerate the current state of affairs appears to be reaching a tipping point."
__________________
paesh
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Thursday, October 20, 2011
falconer's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: city of mountains
Posts: 121
Thanks: 174
Thanked 49 Times in 25 Posts
falconer is on a distinguished road
Default Why the Rich Are Getting Richer

Why the Rich Are Getting Richer?


The U.S. economy appears to be coming apart at the seams. Unemployment remains at nearly ten percent, the highest level in almost 30 years; foreclosures have forced millions of Americans out of their homes; and real incomes have fallen faster and further than at any time since the Great Depression. Many of those laid off fear that the jobs they have lost -- the secure, often unionized, industrial jobs that provided wealth, security, and opportunity -- will never return. They are probably right.

And yet a curious thing has happened in the midst of all this misery. The wealthiest Americans, among them presumably the very titans of global finance whose misadventures brought about the financial meltdown, got richer. And not just a little bit richer; a lot richer. In 2009, the average income of the top five percent of earners went up, while on average everyone else's income went down. This was not an anomaly but rather a continuation of a 40-year trend of ballooning incomes at the very top and stagnant incomes in the middle and at the bottom. The share of total income going to the top one percent has increased from roughly eight percent in the 1960s to more than 20 percent today.

This is what the political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson call the "winner-take-all economy." It is not a picture of a healthy society. Such a level of economic inequality, not seen in the United States since the eve of the Great Depression, bespeaks a political economy in which the financial rewards are increasingly concentrated among a tiny elite and whose risks are borne by an increasingly exposed and unprotected middle class. Income inequality in the United States is higher than in any other advanced industrial democracy and by conventional measures comparable to that in countries such as Ghana, Nicaragua, and Turkmenistan. It breeds political polarization, mistrust, and resentment between the haves and the have-nots and tends to distort the workings of a democratic political system in which money increasingly confers political voice and power.

It is generally presumed that economic forces alone are responsible for this astonishing concentration of wealth. Technological changes, particularly the information revolution, have transformed the economy, making workers more productive and placing a premium on intellectual, rather than manual, labor. Simultaneously, the rise of global markets -- itself accelerated by information technology -- has hollowed out the once dominant U.S. manufacturing sector and reoriented the U.S. economy toward the service sector. The service economy also rewards the educated, with high-paying professional jobs in finance, health care, and information technology. At the low end, however, jobs in the service economy are concentrated in retail sales and entertainment, where salaries are low, unions are weak, and workers are expendable.

Champions of globalization portray these developments as the natural consequences of market forces, which they believe are not only benevolent (because they increase aggregate wealth through trade and make all kinds of goods cheaper to consume) but also unstoppable. Skeptics of globalization, on the other hand, emphasize the distributional consequences of these trends, which tend to confer tremendous benefits on a highly educated and highly skilled elite while leaving other workers behind. But neither side in this debate has bothered to question Washington's primary role in creating the growing inequality in the United States.

IT'S THE GOVERNMENT, STUPID

Hacker and Pierson refreshingly break free from the conceit that skyrocketing inequality is a natural consequence of market forces and argue instead that it is the result of public policies that have concentrated and amplified the effects of the economic transformation and directed its gains exclusively toward the wealthy. Since the late 1970s, a number of important policy changes have tilted the economic playing field toward the rich. Congress has cut tax rates on high incomes repeatedly and has relaxed the tax treatment of capital gains and other investment income, resulting in windfall profits for the wealthiest Americans.

Labor policies have made it harder for unions to organize workers and provide a countervailing force to the growing power of business; corporate governance policies have enabled corporations to lavish extravagant pay on their top executives regardless of their companies' performance; and the deregulation of financial markets has allowed banks and other financial institutions to create ever more Byzantine financial instruments that further enrich wealthy managers and investors while exposing homeowners and pensioners to ruinous risks.

In some cases, these policy changes originated on Capitol Hill: the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts, for example, and the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a repeal that dismantled the firewall between banks and investment companies and allowed the creation of powerful and reckless financial behemoths such as Citigroup, were approved by Congress, generally with bipartisan support. However, other policy shifts occurred gradually and imperceptibly.
__________________
paesh
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Thursday, October 20, 2011
falconer's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: city of mountains
Posts: 121
Thanks: 174
Thanked 49 Times in 25 Posts
falconer is on a distinguished road
Default A New Pakistan Policy: Containment

A New Pakistan Policy: Containment

AMERICA needs a new policy for dealing with Pakistan . First, we must recognize that the two countries’ strategic interests are in conflict, not harmony, and will remain that way as long as Pakistan’s army controls Pakistan’s strategic policies. We must contain the Pakistani Army’s ambitions until real civilian rule returns and Pakistanis set a new direction for their foreign policy.

As Adm. Mike Mullen, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate committee last month, Pakistan provides critical sanctuary and support to the Afghan insurgency that we are trying to suppress. Taliban leaders meet under Pakistani protection even as we try to capture or kill them.

In 2009, I led a policy review for President Obama on Pakistan and Afghanistan . At the time, Al Qaeda was operating with virtual impunity in Pakistan, and its ally Lashkar-e-Taiba had just attacked the Indian city of Mumbai and killed at least 163 people, including 6 Americans, with help from Pakistani intelligence. Under no illusions, Mr. Obama tried to improve relations with Pakistan by increasing aid and dialogue; he also expanded drone operations to fight terrorist groups that Pakistan would not fight on its own.

It was right to try engagement, but now the approach needs reshaping. We will have to persevere in Afghanistan in the face of opposition by Pakistan.

The generals who run Pakistan have not abandoned their obsession with challenging India . They tolerate terrorists at home, seek a Taliban victory in Afghanistan and are building the world’s fastest-growing nuclear arsenal. They have sidelined and intimidated civilian leaders elected in 2008. They seem to think Pakistan is invulnerable, because they control NATO’s supply line from Karachi to Kabul and have nuclear weapons.

The generals also think time is on their side — that NATO is doomed to give up in Afghanistan, leaving them free to act as they wish there. So they have concluded that the sooner America leaves, the better it will be for Pakistan. They want Americans and Europeans to believe the war is hopeless, so they encourage the Taliban and other militant groups to speed the withdrawal with spectacular attacks, like the Sept. 13 raid on the United States Embassy in Kabul, which killed 16 Afghan police officers and civilians.

It is time to move to a policy of containment, which would mean a more hostile relationship. But it should be a focused hostility, aimed not at hurting Pakistan’s people but at holding its army and intelligence branches accountable. When we learn that an officer from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence , or ISI, is aiding terrorism, whether in Afghanistan or India, we should put him on wanted lists, sanction him at the United Nations and, if he is dangerous enough, track him down. Putting sanctions on organizations in Pakistan has not worked in the past, but sanctioning individuals has — as the nuclear proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan could attest.

Offering Pakistan more trade while reducing aid makes sense. When we extend traditional aid, media outlets with ties to the ISI cite the aid to weave conspiracy theories that alienate Pakistanis from us. Mr. Obama should instead announce that he is cutting tariffs on Pakistani textiles to or below the level that India and China enjoy; that would strengthen entrepreneurs and women, two groups who are outside the army’s control and who are interested in peace.

Military assistance to Pakistan should be cut deeply. Regular contacts between our officers and theirs can continue, but under no delusion that we are allies.

Osama bin Laden’s death confirmed that we can’t rely on Pakistan to take out prominent terrorists on its soil. We will still need bases in Afghanistan from which to act when we see a threat in Pakistan. But drones should be used judiciously, for very important targets.

In Afghanistan, we should not have false hopes for a political solution. We can hope that top figures among the Quetta Shura — Afghan Taliban leaders who are sheltered in Quetta, Pakistan — will be delivered to the bargaining table, but that is unlikely, since the Quetta leadership assassinated Burhanuddin Rabbani, the leader of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council and a former Afghan president, last month. The ISI will veto any Taliban peace efforts it opposes, which means any it doesn’t control. Rather than hoping for ISI help, we need to continue to build an Afghan Army that can control the insurgency with long-term NATO assistance and minimal combat troops.

Strategic dialogue with India about Pakistan is essential because it would focus the Pakistani Army’s mind. India and Pakistan are trying to improve trade and transportation links severed after they became independent in 1947, and we should encourage that. We should also increase intelligence cooperation against terrorist targets in Pakistan. And we should encourage India to be more conciliatory on Kashmir, by easing border controls and releasing prisoners.

America and Pakistan have had a tempestuous relationship for decades. For far too long we have banked on the Pakistani Army to protect our interests. Now we need to contain that army’s aggressive instincts, while helping those who want a progressive Pakistan and keeping up the fight against terrorism.

(Bruce O. Riedel, a former C.I.A. officer and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is the author of “Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America and the Future of the Global Jihad.” )
__________________
paesh
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Thursday, October 20, 2011
falconer's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: city of mountains
Posts: 121
Thanks: 174
Thanked 49 Times in 25 Posts
falconer is on a distinguished road
Default The Effort to Isolate Iran

The Effort to Isolate Iran


The Obama administration's charges that an Iranian paramilitary force plotted the assassination of the Saudi ambassador to the United States have prompted denials and counter-charges from the Iranian regime. While Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has said the government is ready to investigate U.S. claims (FARS), admission of official guilt is seen as unlikely.

Stressing the gravity of the accusations, U.S. officials are pressing Iran on multiple fronts. Washington is hoping to use the assassination plot to build international momentum to isolate Iran and put pressure on the regime to rethink its controversial nuclear program, which may include new sanctions. The Obama administration is reportedly urging the UN nuclear watchdog--the IAEA--to release new classified intelligence information in its quarterly report next month to show Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons capability (NYT) . Iran repeatedly claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Iran also came under fire for its widespread human rights abuses, including the use of torture and secret executions, according to a new UN report.

The case of the alleged terror plot was submitted at Saudi Arabia's request to the UN Security Council (AP) , but it is not clear what action Saudi Arabia or the United States will seek from the body. U.S. President Barack Obama has vowed to "apply the toughest sanctions and continue to mobilize the international community" to isolate Iran.

U.S. Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen told the Senate Banking Committee that the United States was considering the possibility of sanctioning Iran's central bank. Washington has already designated five people, including four senior officers of the Quds Force, in relation with the terrorism plot plus sanctioned a major Iranian commercial airline for supporting the IRGC and Quds Force. In solidarity, the UK also froze the assets (BBC) of the five men. So far, Russia and China, veto-wielding members of the Security Council, have reacted cautiously to the U.S. allegations (AP) .

Crisis Guide: Iran

Amid the new U.S.-led sanctions campaign are fresh signs of the difficulties Iran faces in its nuclear program. A new report from Washington-based think tank ISIS says the country's nuclear program has suffered significant setbacks due to a 2010 Stuxnet cyberattack, assassinations of several top Iranian nuclear scientists, and powerful sanctions that have limited access to nuclear materials and equipment. However, the report concludes that Iran's atomic program continues "on a trajectory toward being dedicated to producing weapon-grade uranium for nuclear weapons." It recommends that the international community effectively implement sanctions to further limit Iran's ability to advance its centrifuge program.

Charles D. Ferguson, president of the independent Federation of American Scientists, also recommends targeted sanctions or tougher export controls that ensure Iran does not get the equipment required to sustain its nuclear program. However, broader sanctions such as those targeting the banking sector or the economy as a whole are misguided, he says, because of the pain inflicted on the Iranian people.

U.S. policy toward Tehran, which has included toughening of sanctions as well as offers of engagement and greater economic cooperation, has so far failed to persuade Tehran to halt uranium enrichment. James Dobbins of Rand Corporation says in the new CFR Crisis Guide that it's important to continue to bolster sanctions "both to dissuade Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, but also to dissuade other countries from going down a similar path."

But Vali Nasr of Tufts University says there are limits to what sanctions can do to alter Iranian behavior, largely because the country has access to oil revenue that lessens the impact, and because Iran is accustomed to coping with sanctions. Further, some analysts express doubt that any new measures will persuade the Iranian government to give up its nuclear program. "I don't see the Iranians retreating one iota on the nuclear program" (Reuters) , says proliferation expert Shannon Kile at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
__________________
paesh
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
International Relations: Theories and application Fortune International Relations 0 Sunday, March 27, 2011 02:37 PM
FPSC Recruitment Tests safdarmehmood General Knowledge, Quizzes, IQ Tests 2 Sunday, January 25, 2009 05:38 PM
Problems of Pakistan and their solution Mazher Essays 10 Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:29 AM
indo-pak relations atifch Current Affairs 0 Monday, December 11, 2006 09:01 PM


CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of CSSForum.com.pk (unless CSSForum.com.pk is specifically identified as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback. This forum is not monitored 24/7.

Sponsors: ArgusVision   vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.