AfPak: a slide towards sedition?

The number one foreign policy priority of the Obama administration is clear: Asia. The recent visit of secretary of state Hilary Clinton and the appointment of Richard Holbrooke as the US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan confirm this reality. While the focus of Hilary Clinton’s visit was very much focused around economic and environmental issues, Richard Holbrooke’s primary task is one of stabilisation. In this post I am going to look at the challenges which he faces.

Mr Holbrooke is an eminently capable diplomat, indeed the FT recently described him as “the man whose robust diplomacy helped end the Bosnian war”. However, he will have to employ all of his experience and competencies if he is to be even mildly successful in his new role. The very fact that his mandate encloses both Pakistan and Afghanistan is emblematic of the fact that the Durand Line which divides the two states is scarcely recognised by the Pashtun people who populate the region it divides. The war in Afghanistan cannot be won by dealing with it in isolation. It is only by securing the commitment of the Pakistani government to do all in its power to fight against the jihadists that the US and its allies stand any chance of success. It was with this in mind that President Obama identified one of Mr Holbrooke’s most crucial tasks as persuading “Pakistan that they are endangered as much as we are by the continuation of those operations (jihadists).”

To what degree does this look likely? Although the successful impeachment of President Musharraf in August of last year seemed to signal an, at least partial, return to health of Pakistani democracy, recent events have created cause for worry. Many analysts have long accused Pakistan of covertly supporting the Taliban, who the Pakistani military hope to recruit as a strategic ally in the wider conflict with India. Baluchistan, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and the North West Frontier Province have come under the increasing control of the Taliban but it is events in the Swat valley that have highlighted the seriousness of the challenge Pakistan faces. The Swat valley, formerly a tourist paradise and located just three hours drive from the capital Islamabad is now under the rule of sharia law- a compromise agreed upon by the government following the increasing success of the campaign of terror Islamic militants have been waging in the valley. Similarly, with Pakistan now looking for a top up to the $7.6bn package secured from the IMF at the end of last year and an army which appears both increasingly unwilling and unable to counter the growing threat from Islamic militants the outlook does not look good.

Yet this approach tends to exaggerate the possibility of a theocracy being installed in Pakistan. The vast majority of Pakistani’s remain conservative and in recent years have manifested their rejection of the extremist Islamic parties through the ballot box. The US’s commitment to send a further 17.000 troops to Afghanistan should also have positive ramifications on the political situation in Pakistan. By replacing the pilotless predator drones, which are almost universally detested in both Pakistan and Afghanistan as the harbinger of indiscriminate death (the UN estimates that 455 civilians have died in Afghanistan in the past year as a result of air raids), and by limiting excursions across the border into Pakistan the US could help dampen the anti-Us sentiment which simultaneously destabilises the government and props up the jihadists. This strategy, is of course, largely dependent on the Pakistani government making greater efforts to patrol this bandit country.

The result of the conflict in Afghanistan will have a profound impact on the geopolitical canvas of Southern Asia. If the US can persuade Islamabad to take a significant stand against the jihadists in Pakistan and convince its NATO allies to boost or maintain their troop commitments in Afghanistan the outcome may even create a context which reduces the intensity of the conflict between India and Pakistan. If Islamabad’s inaction continues, Mr Holbrooke will find himself in a fully primed and rapidly enlarging geopolitical minefield.

Ireland, where to now?

Ireland is looking down the barrel of a gun. With its banks looking increasingly fragile, a housing market in precipitous decline, and a political establishment lacking coherence and vision, the gun is fully loaded. The Irish economy has grown by promoting its reputation as a knowledge based economy with access to the European Union. It has fostered enterprise with a liberal, indeed in hindsight far too liberal, doling out of credit and it has sought to ease social tensions with a series of “social partnership agreements”. These policies are rapidly coming undone.

Ireland’s desire to project an image of itself as a knowledge based economy could be in danger, due to the government’s plan to raise third level fees. A possibility loudly decried by recent student protesters. While there is a chronic need for an increase in funding for Irish third level institutions, a need exemplified by the budgetary difficulties currently facing University College Cork, the government’s proposal to increase the student registration fee is a regressive and superficial response to a deep seeded problem. As Michael Moran discussed in an earlier post (link) the notion of increasing the cost of third level education should not be dismissed outright. However, a solution is needed which will equitably distribute the burden of this increase in costs while also providing more than the €35 million envisaged by the government’s proposal. Unfortunately the government’s education strategy, which also includes an increase in primary class size, seems to lack any real vision for the future.

The banking system which fuelled the supply of easy credit has collapsed. Anglo Irish has been nationalised and any lingering confidence the international markets may have had in the others has taken a beating following a string of revelations regarding highly unethical trading practices and accounting manipulation. The nationalisation of Allied Irish and Bank of Ireland may only be a matter of time. Meanwhile an Irish economy starved of credit is slowly grinding to a halt and the central bank predicts a 4% decrease in GDP in 2009.

The State, whose own finances are looking increasingly fragile, has belatedly realised that it must act now if it hopes to salvage the possibility of a return to growth within the next five years. Brian Cowen and co. have finally acknowledged that the public sector pay roll and pension commitments are severely bloated. While private sector pay and pension payments have been forced downwards by the financial crisis and its impact on global markets, public sector workers have been protected under the terms of the national wage agreements and the fact that their pensions are indexed to the job rate! The editorial of the Irish Times on the 14th February stated that there is now a gap of 20 percent in comparable pay between the two sectors. In an attempt to redress this issue the government proposed a pension levy for workers public sector. The unions have labelled this measure as unjust and last Wednesday 120,000 public sector workers took to the streets of Dublin to manifest their discontent. David Begg general secretary of the Irish congress of trade unions (Ictu), which organised the protest, claimed that the burden of economic adjustment was being shared neither equally nor fairly. This protest and the squabbling in the Dail (the national parliament) set a worrying precedent for the governments saving plan of €2 billion.

So the situation doesn’t look rosy. Our economy is shrinking and as unemployment grows tax revenues will decrease and social welfare payments will increase. The reality is that Ireland is going to need to borrow approx. €20 billion this year and that our sovereign credit rating is set for a downgrade. What can be done? Greater unity in the Dail perhaps in the form of a national government or grand coalition would create a firmer base from which action could proceed. Acceptance of the fact that the pay of the public sector must be realigned with that of the private sector would facilitate a move towards greater fiscal responsibility. However, the most crucial step is the formulation of a coherent recovery plan which makes the hard decisions immediately. A plan that must be adhered to and that maintains the most vital services provided by the state such as healthcare, and education while cutting down on other spending. We must ensure that Ireland does not find itself submerged under a mountain of debt. Rather we should improve the fundamentals of our economy, notably our skill levels and our cost base.

A long term vision must take presence over our craving for short term comfort. Although I would like to avoid the Charlie Haughey-esque “tighten your belt” speech it seems rather difficult to promote any other approach. We must position Ireland to benefit from the inevitable, if seemingly distant, resurgence of the global economy.

From hawk to dove, an evolution of US foreign policy?

While many of Obama’s speeches have been characterised by soaring rhetoric, his discourse on foreign relations has been shot through with a strong dose of pragmatism. Bush declared the goal of “ending tyranny in our world” and offered us a utopian vision of a democratic Middle East. Barack Obama and his secretary of state Hilary Clinton have declared a three pronged approach driven by defence, diplomacy and development. The conspicuous absence of democratisation embodies an evolution from grandiose idealism to the realm of the achievable.

Today, Vice-president Joe Biden gave a speech at a security conference in Munich, Germany, in his words - “on behalf of a new administration determined to set a new tone in Washington, and in America's relations around the world". I wrote here about how the new administration had the potential to carve a new role for the US on the world stage. Since then the true extent of the economic crisis has began to unveil itself, there has been a war in Gaza, and Iran launched a rocket into space. These and other events have further complicated the task facing the highly capable foreign policy team Barack Obama has assembled in the White House and the state department.

American foreign policy is undergoing a thorough recalibration. The most obvious casualty of this re-orientation is the “War on Terror”. Indeed the closure of Guantanamo bay illustrates the realisation that the struggle with terrorism is more about the underlying ideologies than military force. This greater focus on “soft power” does not dictate a rejection of “hard power” but rather a more pragmatic approach to foreign relations which blends several strands of realism. The US seems determined to invoke what Joseph Nye termed “smart power”.

Mr Biden’s speech encapsulated this balance. He declared that while America will listen to the world, it will also demand that other countries play a greater role in world affairs. The allocation of a greater number of troops to Afghanistan, and the acceptance of ex-Guantanamo detainees are concrete examples of areas in which the Obama administration expects greater cooperation. This demand for greater support reflects the growing clamour that the US is playing the role of the world’s policeman, and in doing so exhausting itself, both militarily and financially. Other nations who are more than capable of playing a role are content to sit back and enjoy the benefits of the US enforced global order.

Biden’s speech also conveyed the fact that a return to multi-lateralism is on the cards with an emphasis placed on renewing the role of the UN, and the US’s relationship with both Russia and the EU. The UN has a key role to play in any world order, and any move to reform its cumbersome and often inefficient mechanisms would be an integral step to the formulation of a new world order. However, the idealism of these goals was tempered by the fact that the US plans for a missile defence shield in Europe will continue. This announcement, and the continuity of other policies enacted under the Bush regime, is a sign that the new regime is determined not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Each case will be evaluated on its merits rather than declaring a de facto tabula rasa.

Thus far the Obama administration has succeeded in fostering the possibility of progress through dialogue, while avoiding appearing to be weak. With economic nationalism rearing its ugly head, Iranian and Israeli elections looming, and weak commodity prices destabilising several already unstable states the optimum equilibrium between the carrot and the stick may become increasingly elusive. What is certain is that any state who reads the new regime as a pure bred dove will soon find itself confronted by the reality of American force. As Biden declared today “The force of arms won our independence, and throughout our history, the force of arms has protected our freedom. That will not change”.

A road to nowhere?

I recently wrote about the deadlock in the talks between Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai on the formation of a coalition government in Zimbabwe (see here). Mr Tsvangirai and his party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), cited Mr Mugabe's refusal to consider handing over the control of the police and the army as the major impediment to progress. On the 30th of January Mr Tsvangirai signed an agreement which will see him sworn in as the Zimbabwean Prime Minister (alongside President Mugabe), and the MDC occupy 11 of the 31 cabinet posts including finance health and education.What has changed since Mr Tsvangirai's despairing statement on the 19th of January, and should we be content?

A number of factors both domestic and international have come to bear over the past two weeks. Firstly, african leaders have been putting increasing pressure on Tsvangirai to join a coalition government. The South African Development committee (SADC) has played a key role in negotiations and according to recent reports was becoming frustrated with Mr Tsvangirai's refusal to enter into a coalition government. Indeed, it was South Africa the dominant power in the region who pushed Tsvangirai to accept joint control of the police and army, a proposal he had previously rejected. Mr Tsvangirai has had to be wary of his interaction with neighbouring countries as long term he will be reliant on there support in his quest to transfrom Zimbabwe's fortunes.

Secondly, Mr T.svangirai has recently spoken out about the urgent need to tackle the growing humanitarian crisis with Botswana’s president, Seretse Khama Ian Khama, declaring that Zimbabwe has “literally become like one big refugee camp, full of people who are living lives of misery” Western countries have made it clear that a rescue for the Zimbabwean economy will only be considered when Mugabe has been sidelined and reforms have begun. There are also hopes that MDC supporters and other members of the opposition who are currently languishing in jails around the country will be freed.

External pressure applied both by neighbouring countries and by the western powers has been key in the formulation of this coalition, but does this serve as an example of peaceful and desirable regime change? The first response must be 'yes', the international community has rightly supported the rightful victor in last years Presidential election. However, the fact that Robert Mugabe retains the support of the SADC, after an election their own observers denounced as neither free nor fair, sets a dangerous precedent for ruling parties who sense their hold on power slipping. The extent of human suffering that Mugabe has inflicted on his people, a suffering compounded by the western decision to withold state sponsored aid further complicates any evaluation of the West's role.

Mr Tsvangirai now faces his biggest challenge. Mugabe will do everything in his still considerable power to neutralise the MDC as a political force. However, it is only from within the organs of government that Mr Tsvangirai can introduce the reforms his country so badly needs. Trapped in a political quandry Mr Tsvangirai chose the high road, it is now the responsability of the international community, and in particular the SADC to make sure he doesn't get diverted.