U.S Pledge to Afghanistan: Will the presidential campaign alter things?

Featured in The Pryer.

The run-up to the United States presidential election is already upon us, with the recent announcement of Paul Ryan as the Republican vice-presidential candidate.

One issue that candidates have been less vocal about is Afghanistan and American military forces. Earlier this year Britain’s defence minister announced plans to cut the British forces by more than half amongst shouts in the House of Commons that Britain can no longer afford such an army. One wonders which route the American president will take, how this will affect Afghanistan and whether the US can maintain such a foothold in the Middle East.So far the two presidential candidates, Obama and Romney, have discussed the issues of the healthcare proposals Obama’s administration put forward (so-called ‘Obamacare’), the role of women in society and, only this week, a Republican party member was discussing the explosive topic of abortion.

Under the Obama administration, the United States has pledged to support Afghanistan for ten years after the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel in 2014. The announcement of this partnership in April of this year raised interesting questions about the nature of nation-building and aid, as well as continuing U.S. interests in the state and region.

While the partnership sent a message to the Afghan people that the West will not abandon them, it was seemingly also a warning to the Taliban and neighboring states that a Western departure will not be an opportunity to make mischief.

Cynically speaking, the announcement was timely for President Obama given the controversies that have marred America’s relationship with Afghanistan—the burning of Korans by U.S. soldiers, the recent release of photographs showing soldiers posing with Afghan bodies, and the murderous rampage of Staff Sergeant Robert Bales.

The promise of continued American support signifies an attempt to assuage such tensions while making a graceful exit, but one must wonder; if Obama secures a second term, is a long-term influx of American aid what is needed in Afghanistan?

Writing in the Guardian in November 2011, Bill Easterly warned of the American tendency to use development initiatives as opportunities to strengthen defence. Easterly suggests that the American habit of providing aid to war-torn and fragile states in the interest of national security is “misguided.”

Instead the focus should be on “areas with a better track record—health, education, infrastructure, and clean water and sanitation—operating in societies where war, repression and corruption do not make it pointless for aid to operate.”

Obama has continued an aid legacy that according to Easterly is ineffective, would a second term unhindered by the need to consider re-election prospects change this? Would Republican Romney offer a different perspective on the topic of aid and Afghanistan?

Perhaps a more potent question that rises from the American pledge is: will it even work? Speaking at Carnegie Council in 2011, Francis Fukuyama discussed the problems that arise when outside influences attempt to help a nation rebuild itself: “I don’t think we realize how difficult it is, how many resources it takes, and how long a process it is.”

Economist Dambisa Moyo is more specific in her criticism of outside influence, stating that the problem with aid is that citizens cannot hold their governments fully accountable as the agendas of aid donors often influence any decision made.

At the time of the announcement the main question was: in the case of Afghanistan, will the American partnership hinder government with hidden agendas or will Afghanistan benefit from the protection of the U.S from potential threats?

Today I am asking, will the pledge change under a new President and why are the candidates remaining quiet over an issue that until recently was front page news?

When Enough is Enough.

Featured in The Pryer

Thursday 2^nd of August should have been a wake up call for the International Community and yet for most the news of Kofi Annan’s resignation as special envoy of the UN and League of Arab States for Syria will not have registered. This is the depressing reality of international politics today. Whilst stories of victims in Aleppo continued to be broadcast many fail to realise that it is time for serious change.

For lack of a better phrase, the twenty – first century is stuck in a rut and going nowhere very fast. This needs to change and not only because the crisis in Syria has reached critical point. Look at all policies regarding domestic and international politics in the last century. How much has effectively changed? Not much is the answer.

Yes, there have been slight shifts here and there and the odd successful international policy but we are still stuck in the same relationships and organisations that grind to a halt at the prospect of action, we are still vulnerable to economic downturns due to the folly of others, we still have nuclear weapons despite decades of trying to eliminate them and we still live under the loom of distant war whether it be with Iran, China, North Korea or whoever. Effectively, the International System has ground to a halt.

In his farewell letter for The Financial Times Annan wrote “The UN has condemned the further descent to civil war but the fighting still goes on with no sign of relief for Syrians…while the Security Council is trapped in stalemate, so too is Syria.” Annan’s words are cutting in their truth about an entire political system that relies on age old alliances to save a situation despite an unwillingness for anyone to step forward and act.

Whilst reading Keith Payne on the topic of the popular Cold War theory of nuclear deterrence and its future, I was struck by his assessment of U.S defense policy and America’s reliance on a theory created in Cold War context. In his book he writes, “The confidence in deterrence that typified the Cold War is presumed to apply in China and to rogue states as if dramatic changes in opponent and context are irrelevant.” The argument being, that much has changed in the system and yet America has failed to grasp that policies might need to change alongside.

The United Nations has been symbolic of the step towards international cooperation since the end of the Second World War yet is now seemingly used as an excuse by all nations to shrug off responsibilities; Likewise the ever-popular Non – Nuclear Proliferation Treaty or the European Union. Where direct action has been necessary in the past these symbols of international cooperation have provided an excuse not to.

So far so dramatic, but think of examples. Had one of the nuclear states stepped up and eliminated nuclear stockpiles many would have followed yet states continue to splutter and negotiate. Had one country in Europe spoken up about the spending of others long before crisis hit perhaps the euro zone would have fared slightly better.  Had one country spoken up against Russian and Chinese reluctance to assist in Syria perhaps more forces would have been sent and Aleppo would not have suffered like they are doing so today.

Whilst this all sounds idealistic, maybe we should recognize that our system is failing and change is needed. Can we honestly say the United Nations is working? Can we hold our heads high and say we are doing all we can? Can we point to one nation that is providing necessary leadership? The West has long heralded its system of democracy and international cooperation as the one to emulate but are we failing to recognize that systems are crumbling and we should return to the drawing board? If Kofi Annan cannot see a way forward without change, then perhaps we should take note.

Army Cuts: A shift for the 21st Century.

Last week the Secretary of State for Defence Philip Hammond announced major cuts to the size of the British Army. Amidst battles to save the pound and the euro, improve Britain’s social infrastructure and keep the governing Coalition from falling apart in general, the issue of war and defence has taken a backseat. Is this a good move on the part of the government?

In a word, Yes. In general the 21^st century has witnessed a major shift in attitudes to war. Where once the maxim of Carl Von Clauswitz that war was a logical extension of politics held precedence for a nations foreign policy, the same no longer applies. Since 1945 outright war has been the very last option a state seeks to enact and bar a few obvious examples in the last decade, major wars between states have been few and far between.

The creation of organisations such as the United Nations, trade alliances such as MERCOSUR and whole regions such as the Euro zone illustrates the distinct shift the International System has experienced in way of state interaction. Where once the system was defined by its wars and then its allegiance to a certain block during the Cold war era, the system now relies on cooperation. In an era where diplomacy and discussion takes precedence, the British government have taken the plunge and begun to dismantle what has become, since the Iraq war in 2003, a huge financial and PR drain for the government.

Some have been quick to criticise the move with the view that once cut, the Army will never recover and we will be severely weakened in terms of defence. Whilst I understand the argument, it is almost impossible to agree. Britain has long relied on alliances to boost its international strength. Without an Empire we would not have been considered a formidable power and the defeat of Hitler Germany only succeeded with the assistance of France, Russia and America. A more worrying move is the expansion of the Territorial Army. Whilst I understand the need for reserves, I am distinctly uncomfortable with the promotion of youths practising at playing soldiers.

I am in no way slamming the British Forces, who I think do an incredibly brave job, nor am I applauding the loss of thousands of jobs and livelihoods. However, when looking at the world today we need to ask ourselves, what need do we have a sprawling army? Surely we have other priorities.

French Politics: Separation between State and Bedroom please.

Last week the latest saga in what has been described by the Telegraph as a “catfight” between the current and former lovers of France’s recent President Francois Hollande took a turn for the public and has raised interesting questions about politics and the roles that love, sex and infidelity have to play in the French political arena.

The tensions between Hollande’s former partner Segolene Royal and the current First ‘Girlfriend’ of France, Valerie Trierweiler, are no different to tensions that would surround any relationship between two women in one mans life. Yet what distinguishes this relationship and to a certain extent causes alarm is that all players are significant political figures and the prize is no longer Hollande but the French public. 

In the past we have seen politicians use the personal lives of opponents to win an election. No one will forget the infamous speech President Bill Clinton was force to make after his affair with an employee was discovered yet France has failed to recognize that whilst the public look to the women beside politicians, personal scandals can do no favours and the “C’est la vie” attitude we have come to expect just doesn’t cut it in current political climes.

Looking at last week’s French parliamentary election in which Royal was running, this is evident. With starkly different political policies to his predecessor and the recent questioning of relations between France and Germany, the French elections were an opportunity for Hollande to promote a sense of direction and calm for a general public clearly unimpressed with the actions of Sarkozy. Trierweiler, however, deflected any news of the political outcome with, what one can only suspect as, a calculated tweet in support of Royal’s opponent. Where Clinton, Obama, Cameron and all others would be in public overdrive, Hollande of course has said nothing.

Whilst Twitter is the forum in which meaningless isms are posted on a regular basis, the decision to open fire on issues relating to politics when they should be personal is a dangerous one yet one that frequently occurs in France. One has only to look at the history of the French monarchy to see how the indulgence in women and sex left government estranged to its people. And let’s not forget former President Nicolas Sarzoky, his high profile divorce and his marriage to former model Carla Bruni.

Marrying Bruni soon after his messy divorce to another presidential hopeful, Sarkozy portrayed a man more interested in women than in politics. In 2008 Sarkozy’s popularity was steadily in decline due to the view that the President was ignoring his country to have fun with his new wife. Sarkozy’s visit to England in 2010 was an opportunity to discuss a deeper relationship between the two countries, yet all politics was forgotten when a picture of a naked Carla Bruni went on sale at Christies. Whilst Sarkozy publicly showed disappointment one can only a suspect smugness in the man who paraded his wife around as an example of his pulling power.

Jacques George, author of Sex et Politique, has claimed when discussing France “To come to power, you have to seduce, and to stay there, you have to prove yourself vigoureux.” Is this the correct way forward? Should Sarkozy and Hollande have mixed politics and sex? Whilst every country has its scandals in parliament, one can’t help but think that France continues to take it too far.

It seems that England has trouble separating Media and State, America continue to confuse Church and State and France seem to think that the State takes place in the bedroom. Only time will tell if France will tire of the scandals of Hollande as they did so with Sarkozy. 

Flowers for Harleys: The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Comes into Effect

Written for The Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs and the Global Ethics Network.

Five years after its proposal, the trade agreement between the United States and Colombia came into force on May 15 with the export of Colombian flowers to the United States and an expected shipment of Harley-Davidson motorcycles to Colombia. It was a topic of contention at the 2012 Summit of the Americas that took place in the Colombian city of Cartagena: Will the free trade agreement fulfill the mutual benefits that boosters prophesy?

Proposed during the Bush administration, the free trade agreement (FTA) has been down a slow and winding road. With political divisions between Colombian President Juan Santos and his predecessor Alvaro Uribe, and the recent prostitution scandal that took place at the summit, the announcement that the agreement had finally come into force is a positive step for the Colombian government.

The recent shift, too, towards protectionism within Latin American countries such as Brazil and Argentina further places positive emphasis on the announcement of the trade agreement. According to The Economist, fears of Asian competition have led countries in Latin America to turn away from agreements and Mercosur relationships suggesting that free trade with the United States will benefit Colombia at a time when trade relationships elsewhere are facing pressure.

The agreement has, however, faced much criticism. The BBC reported that U.S. labor groups fear the agreement will lead to job losses at a time when workers can least afford it whilst Colombian Trade Unions fear Colombia is not yet developed enough to withstand such competition. Only seven months ago Colombian agriculture minister Juan Camilo Restrepo discussed the need to prepare small businesses and producers so that “when the cold shower of the FTA hits them, it doesn’t turn into pneumonia”. Is Colombia ready to open its doors to the United States?

TripleCrisis’s Kevin Gallagher suggests not. Arguing that Colombia will have to work twice as hard as the United States to benefit at all from the FTA, Gallagher uses the findings of the 2007 Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean to predict losses for Colombia in areas of “textiles, apparel, food, and heavy manufacturing industries, outweighing the gains from increased petroleum, mining, and other exports to the United States.”

The Free Trade Agreement between Colombia and the United States is presented as an opportunity for increased foreign investment in Colombia; whether or not the agreement will actually benefit Colombia in the way that it hopes still remains to be seen.

Further Reading:
“United States Must Redefine Fair Trade” Devin Stewart

“Drop the Free-Trade Blinders” Dani Rodrik

“Pragmatic Overdose: Ethics and creativity are stifled in the draft... Evan O’Neil

“A Human Rights Argument For The Colombia Free Trade Agreement” Susan Rice

“Marrying Trade and Human Rights” Susan Aaronson

“Local Produce Vs Global Trade” Adam Dean, Policy Innovations

U.S. Pledge to Afghanistan: National Security and Aid

The United States has pledged to support Afghanistan for ten years after the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel in 2014. The announcement of this partnership raises interesting questions about the nature of nation-building and aid, as well as U.S. interests in the state and region. While the partnership sends a message to the Afghan people that the West will not abandon them, it also sends a warning to the Taliban and neighboring states that a Western departure will not be an opportunity for them.

The announcement is timely given the recent controversies that have marred America's relationship with Afghanistan—the burning of Korans by U.S. soldiers, the recent release of photographs showing soldiers posing with Afghan bodies, and the murderous rampage of Staff Sergeant Robert Bales. The announcement of continued American support signifies an attempt to assuage such tensions while making a graceful exit, but is a long-term influx of American aid what is needed in Afghanistan?

Writing in the Guardian in November 2011, Bill Easterly warns of the American tendency to use development initiatives as opportunities to strengthen defense. Easterly suggests that the American habit of providing aid to war-torn and fragile states in the interest of national security is "misguided." Instead the focus should be on "areas with a better track record—health, education, infrastructure, and clean water and sanitation—operating in societies where war, repression and corruption do not make it pointless for aid to operate."

Perhaps a more potent question that rises from the American pledge is: Will it even work? Speaking at Carnegie Council in 2011, Francis Fukuyama discussed the problems that arise when outside influences attempt to help a nation rebuild itself: "I don't think we realize how difficult it is, how many resources it takes, and how long a process it is." Economist Dambisa Moyo is more specific in her criticism of outside influence, stating that the problem with aid is that citizens cannot hold their governments fully accountable as the agendas of aid donors often influence any decision made. In the case of Afghanistan, will the American partnership hinder government with hidden agendas or will Afghanistan benefit from the protection of the U.S from potential threats?

Further Reading:

"The Ethics of Exit from Afghanistan" Carnegie New Leaders Program: Katherine Brown, Robert Diamond, David C. Speedie

"Troops in Afghanistan and Fighting Foreign Wars" Global Ethics Corner

"Symposium: The Ethics of America's Afghan War." Carnegie Council

"A Look at Current U.S. Security Issues". Jeffery D. McCausland, Phillip McCausland

"Building Peace and Civil Society in Afghanistan: Challenges and Opportunities." Ana Cutter

"International Aid: Does Help Hurt?" Global Ethics Corner

"Between men and women there is no friendship possible."

Oscar Wilde claimed "Between men and women there is no friendship possible. There is passion, enmity, worship, love, but no friendship." This is a wide generalisation and, as one could suspect, a comment meant to enthral his audience but perhaps Wilde was right on the mark in regard to friendship between former lovers.

Past experience has taught me that any break up is traumatic and damaging to at least one of the parties involved. What was once a connection that brings two people together can prevent any friendship from forming. Many have said that they have remained friends with old flames, but I wonder how truthful that really is. Can you remain friends with the person you have spilled your darkest secrets with? Your darkest thoughts?

CNN's Ami Angelowicz argues friendships can be maintained with exes in six simple steps. Can the human heart or mind really be diluted to six simple steps? I'm inclined to say no. Not for no reason have songs been written about the loss of a lover and the friendship that accompanies it.

I'm not saying that losing a friendship when you lose a lover is always a bad thing - in most cases it is a very good thing. I've always doubted the view held that you can get over a love and transform a relationship into a platonic one. Love is all those things listed in Wilde's declaration of relations between men and women - friendship could not compete with such memories creating complications and heart ache for all involved.

So perhaps Oscar should amend his exclamation of the relationships between men and women and say "Between old lovers there is no friendship possible."