Just Foreign Policy News
May 5, 2011
Support the Work of Just Foreign Policy
Go Straight to the News Summary
I) Actions and Featured Articles
*Action: Send a Letter to the Editor on Afghan withdrawal and drawdown
Senator Boxer has introduced a bill requiring the President to establish a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan – a timetable with an end date. A real deadline for US withdrawal would facilitate meaningful peace talks. More visible Senate criticism of the endless war can move the White House to a substantial drawdown of U.S. troops this summer. Send a letter to your local newspaper – we’ve provided "talking points."
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/s186/lte
[Update: Bernie Sanders is now a cosponsor of the Boxer bill.]
The War Is Over. Start Packing!
No doubt there will be a window of relief now, in which many will be willing to give the U.S. the benefit of some doubt about its future plans. But if the war continues as it has, public opinion will soon ask, "We got our man. Why are we still there?"
http://www.truthout.org/war-over-start-packing/1304352151
MoveOn: Afghanistan: Bring Our Troops Home
"President Obama, we need to end the war in Afghanistan. Please keep your commitment to begin an accelerated withdrawal of troops in July."
http://pol.moveon.org/afghanistan_drawdown/index.html
Cliff Stearns Shifts After Bin Laden’s Death, Calls For Serious Reexamination Of Afghanistan War
First Republican to turn following the death of OBL.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/cliff-stearns-bin-laden-afghanistan_n_857630.html
Peace Now: Hamas Won’t Disappear, Be Smart
Peace Now Secretary General Yariv Oppenheimer, in Washington with APN: If Hamas gets into the Palestinian government, and accepts negotiations with Israel, it will be a victory for all the pragmatic forces in the region.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuSjEChXuFs
FAIR: Waterboarding ‘Worked’?
Media push pro-torture message.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4281
Jeff Sachs: World is drowning in corporate fraud
Light the dark corners of international finance.
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/article_39bf29cd-61af-51d8-a8ad-8732115fe73a.html
Help Support Our Advocacy for Peace and Diplomacy
The opponents of peace and diplomacy work every day. Help us be an effective counterweight.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate
II) Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) US officials say the Obama administration is seeking to use the killing of bin Laden to accelerate a negotiated settlement with the Taliban and hasten the end of the Afghanistan war, the Washington Post reports. Administration officials think bin Laden’s death could make peace talks a more palatable outcome for Americans and insulate President Obama from criticism that his administration would be negotiating with terrorists, the Post says.
Top military officials contend that if they are left to pursue their strategy without a significant reduction in troops, the Taliban will be forced into a weaker deal, getting no more than a minority role within a U.S.-friendly government. But many of the president’s civilian national security advisers contend that the benefits of incremental gains do not merit the cost – in lives and dollars – of such a large military presence. They say negotiations are an essential part of a new war strategy that will allow Obama to announce a substantial reduction in U.S. forces starting this summer but still ensure that the Taliban will no longer rule the entire country.
2) The killing of bin Laden led to new questions about whether it is time to end the Afghanistan war, The Hill reports. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said he voted for the 2001 resolution authorizing the war "to go after" al Qaeda and bin Laden. "Now here we are, 10 years later," Durbin said. "If you asked me if I was signing up for the longest war in U.S. history, with no end in sight, even with the killing of Osama bin Laden, that was not the bargain, that is not what I was signing up for." Senate Armed Services Chair Carl Levin said he hopes bin Laden’s death will compel the Obama administration to bring home a "robust" number of troops when it starts a planned withdrawal in July.
Sen. Richard Lugar, ranking member on Foreign Relations, said Afghanistan no longer holds the strategic importance to match Washington’s investment. He cited recent comments from senior national-security officials that terrorist strikes on America are more likely to be planned in places like Yemen.
3) In a Senate hearing, Senator Durbin asked one of the most pointed questions by a Democratic leader to date, The Nation reports: "If you believe that resolution of this conflict by military means is highly unlikely and not a realistic basis for US policy, how can we send one more American soldier to fight and die in Afghanistan?" Senator Lugar said "it is exceedingly difficult to conclude that our vast expenditures in Afghanistan represent a rational allocation of our military and financial assets." Lugar’s concerns were echoed by Senator Robert Menendez, who said plainly that "I’ve been supportive of the administration so far, but I have a real hard time as we move forward."
4) Senator Lugar said, "President Obama must be forthcoming on a definition of success in Afghanistan based on U.S. vital interests and a sober analysis of what is possible to achieve," according to a statement from his office. Lugar said that "with al Qaeda largely displaced from the country, but franchised in other locations, Afghanistan does not carry a strategic value that justifies 100,000 American troops and a $100 billion per year cost." Lugar noted that: the Afghanistan left by US forces will be imperfect, but Obama has not said what imperfections are tolerable; we are spending enormous resources in a single country while cutting elsewhere; more serious threats lie elsewhere; grand nation building ambitions in Afghanistan are beyond our powers; the "alliance burden" is being borne overwhelmingly by the US.
5) Progressive Democrats in the House renewed their call on President Obama for a significant and sizeable reduction in U.S. troops in Afghanistan following the death of bin Laden, according to a statement from Barbara Lee’s office.
6) Gisha, an Israeli NGO which campaigns for freedom of movement for Palestinians, expressed hope that Egypt will expand the ability of Gaza residents to travel abroad via Rafah. Gisha also noted the need to permit passage of people and goods between Gaza and the West Bank. Gisha noted that Gaza is allowed to export to Europe but not to the West Bank, and that Palestinians are not permitted to travel between Gaza and the West Bank. Today, passage through Rafah is limited to holders of foreign citizenship or residence, holders of visas and those seeking medical attention or study in Egypt. Since 2005, goods have not been permitted to pass via Rafah except for humanitarian assistance.
7) Rival Palestinian movements signed a historic reconciliation accord Wednesday vowing common cause against Israeli occupation, a product of shifting regional relations and disillusionment with US peace efforts, the New York Times reports. "We will have one authority and one decision," said Hamas leader Khaled Meshal. "We need to achieve the common goal: a Palestinian state with full sovereignty on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital, no settlers, and we will not give up the right of return."
In a sign of early change on the ground, Hamas’s television broadcasts were beamed for the first time into the West Bank, and Palestinian Authority broadcasts into Gaza. Under the deal, Hamas will be integrated into the PLO, and will be part of the leadership taking major decisions. Munib al-Masri, a West Bank businessman who has been promoting reconciliation, said the deal should be given a chance. "Hamas will change," he said in an interview. "Bring them in. Fatah used to be just like them."
Israel/Palestine
8) Outgoing Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin said Wednesday that reactions to the reconciliation between rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah have been blown out of proportion, Haaretz reports. The outgoing Shin Bet chief also dissented from Israeli proposals to freeze the transfer of tax money to the Palestinian Authority. "Overall, we have to give the Palestinian Authority money," he said. "At the moment, as long as the Palestinian Authority remains in status quo, there is no reason to change our policies toward them or the security arrangements we have with them," Diskin said.
9) Israeli conductor Daniel Barenboim brought a message of support for non-violence and Palestinian statehood with his "Orchestra for Gaza," the Guardian reports. Barenboim drew a burst of applause when he told the Gaza audience that they might recognize the first movement of Mozart’s Symphony No 40 as it was the basis of one of the celebrated songs of Fairuz, the most famous living singer in the Arab world. "I am a Palestinian ..… and an Israeli," Barenboim told the audience, who applauded the second statement only slightly less than the first. "So you see it is possible to be both." Barenboim has previously played in Ramallah and holds an honorary Palestinian passport.
Japan
10) Scores of secret State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks give an inside view of Washington’s relationship with Japan, the New York Times reports. US officials "played the China card" to get Japan to be more cooperative, particularly on the US military base in Okinawa. Japan’s leaders said frankly in private what they cannot say in public: that the current agreement to relocate the Futenma base to a site in northern Okinawa seems undoable because of local opposition.
Bahrain
11) Several doctors and nurses who treated injured anti-government protesters in Bahrain will be tried in a military court on charges of acting against the state, AP reports. During the unrest, medical staff repeatedly said they were under professional duty to treat all and strongly rejected claims by authorities that helping anti-government protesters was akin to supporting their cause.
Iran
12) The US may have missed its moment to apply more political pressure on governments to stop buying Iranian crude as rising fuel prices make Washington wary about further interruptions to the global supply chain, Reuters reports. U.S. leverage has waned after the civil war in Libya virtually halted the north African country’s crude shipments. Asia’s fastest-growing oil consumers, the main buyers from Iran, are more than ever prioritizing security of supply given that spare capacity is limited.
Jamaica
13) A new paper from CEPR finds that Jamaica’s economic and social progress has suffered from unsustainable debt. Pro-cyclical macroeconomic policies, implemented under the auspices of the IMF, have also damaged Jamaica’s economic prospects.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) With bin Laden’s death, U.S. sees a chance to hasten the end of the Afghan war
Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Washington Post, Tuesday, May , 9:37 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/with_bin_ladens_death_us_sees_a_chance_to_hasten_the_end_of_the_afghan_war/2011/05/03/AF3TlNjF_story.html
The Obama administration is seeking to use the killing of Osama bin Laden to accelerate a negotiated settlement with the Taliban and hasten the end of the Afghanistan war, according to U.S. officials involved in war policy.
Administration officials think it could now be easier for the reclusive leader of the largest Taliban faction, Mohammad Omar, to break his group’s alliance with al-Qaeda, a key U.S. requirement for any peace deal. They also think that bin Laden’s death could make peace talks a more palatable outcome for Americans and insulate President Obama from criticism that his administration would be negotiating with terrorists.
"Bin Laden’s death is the beginning of the endgame in Afghanistan," said a senior administration official who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal policy deliberations. "It changes everything."
Another senior official involved in Afghanistan policy said the killing "presents an opportunity for reconciliation that didn’t exist before." Those officials and others have engaged in urgent discussions and strategy sessions over the past two days about how to leverage the death into a spark that ignites peace talks.
But actually bringing the various Taliban factions to the negotiating table remains a challenge. Omar’s shadowy organization, based in the Pakistani city of Quetta, does not have a political wing or officials who have been publicly identified as interlocutors. The Obama administration is also depending on deft maneuvering by Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government, which is supposed to be leading the process, and the cooperation of the Pakistani government, whose intelligence service – long a patron of various Taliban groups – could easily interfere with peace overtures.
"We know where we want to go, but getting there won’t be easy," the second senior official said. "There’s a long and complicated path ahead."
[…] Although a peace deal has long been the preferred outcome for civilian members of the president’s national security team, many of whom question the sustainability of recent military gains, skepticism from Pentagon officials and ground commanders held up a unified U.S. government strategy until this spring.
In a February speech that elicited little attention because of events in the Middle East, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton articulated the outlines of the administration’s new approach. In a significant shift toward encouraging dialogue, she made clear that the Taliban no longer has to renounce violence, break with al-Qaeda or embrace the Afghan constitution as preconditions for talks; now those terms only have to be "necessary outcomes of any negotiation."
"Reconciling with an adversary that can be as brutal as the Taliban sounds distasteful, even unimaginable. And diplomacy would be easy if we only had to talk to our friends. But that is not how one makes peace," Clinton said.
Top military officials have expressed concern in internal discussions that calling for negotiations too soon could jeopardize hard-fought gains on the battlefield. They contend that their aggressive campaign is weakening the insurgency, and that if they are left to pursue their strategy without a significant reduction in troops, the Taliban will be forced into a weaker deal, getting no more than a minority role within a U.S.-friendly, democratic government.
But many of the president’s civilian national security advisers contend that the benefits of incremental gains do not merit the cost – in lives and dollars – of such a large military presence. They say negotiations are an essential part of a new war strategy that will allow Obama to announce a substantial reduction in U.S. forces starting this summer but still ensure that the Taliban will no longer rule the entire country.
"How are we going to get there? We can get there by continuing to fight them. I don’t think that’s actually a strategy that is successful. Or we can get there by negotiating with them in such a way to allow a political settlement where they’re part of the government," Anne-Marie Slaughter, who was the State Department’s director of policy planning until earlier this year, said at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. Bin Laden’s death, she said, "creates a new opportunity to begin real negotiations."
[…] Pakistani officials have long seen a contradiction in Washington’s effort to target those with whom it wishes to negotiate, and they fear that the U.S. goal is an Afghan government more allied with India, Pakistan’s historical adversary. The Pakistani government believes that Taliban insurgents are the only card it has to play in the game for long-term strategic influence in the region.
Although the Taliban has steadfastly refused to renounce al-Qaeda, U.S. officials think that bin Laden’s death gives Omar an opportunity to distance himself from the group without losing face in front of his followers, because his offer of protection, made more than 10 years ago, was given to bin Laden, not the entire terrorist network.
[…] And with bin Laden out of the picture, talking to the Taliban could become less politically fraught for Obama. Talking to the Taliban, the second senior official said, "no longer looks like you’re weak on national security."
[…]
2) Pressure builds to end Afghan war
John T. Bennett, The Hill, 05/04/11 09:11 AM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/159123-pressure-builds-to-end-the-afghan-war
The killing of Osama bin Laden, a tremendous victory for the Obama administration, has led to new questions about whether it is time to end the Afghanistan war.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he voted for the 2001 resolution authorizing the war, taken just months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, "to go after" al Qaeda and bin Laden.
"Now here we are, 10 years later," Durbin said. "If you asked me if I was signing up for the longest war in U.S. history, with no end in sight, even with the killing of Osama bin Laden, that was not the bargain, that is not what I was signing up for."
[…] Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he hopes bin Laden’s death will compel the Obama administration to bring home a "robust" number of American troops when it starts a planned partial withdrawal in July. While Levin has no plans to push legislation requiring such a pullout, he will publicly advocate for a "significant reduction," he said Monday.
The White House has stressed that the death of bin Laden is a major victory in the battle against al Qaeda, but should not be seen as a reason to change the U.S. game plan in Afghanistan. White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan "remains very much in place."
[…] A weariness about the Afghanistan war had set in well before bin Laden’s killing. A March poll by ABC News and The Washington Post found that nearly two-thirds of those responding no longer think the war is worth fighting.
A new poll released Wednesday by Gallup found more than 50 percent of Americans still think the country has work to do in Afghanistan, but also revealed a significant party split.
Fifty-four percent of Democrats said the U.S. had achieved its goal in Afghanistan, compared to 38 percent of Republicans and 44 percent of independents.
On Capitol Hill, many lawmakers are worried not only about those polls, but about the cost of continuing the war at a time of record deficits. The fact that recent attempted attacks on U.S. soil have been hatched in other countries also has raised questions about continuing the fight in Afghanistan.
During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday, several committee members zeroed in on the tens of billions of dollars Washington already has spent in Afghanistan, and questioned whether such expenditures are sustainable in the future.
Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), the panel’s ranking member, said Afghanistan no longer holds the strategic importance to match Washington’s investment. He cited recent comments from senior national-security officials that terrorist strikes on America are more likely to be planned in places like Yemen.
He said it is no longer "clear why we’re there," saying nations like Yemen that harbor extremists "are getting a free pass."
Lugar raised concerns that U.S. policy on Afghanistan is focused more on building up its economic, political and security systems. "Such grand nation-building is beyond our powers," he said bluntly.
Lugar called on Obama to define success in Afghanistan, and to begin working toward that revised goal.
[…] "With the death of bin Laden, some people will ask why we don’t pack up and leave Afghanistan. We can’t do that," said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the Foreign Relations Committee chairman. "But it is no longer enough to simply lay out our goals. We need to determine what type of Afghanistan we plan to leave in our wake so that we may actually achieve these objectives. And how will peace be achieved?"
[…] Still, even Kerry acknowledged the costs of the war carry a toll.
"As we debate the end-state, we must factor in what we can afford in light of our budget constraints," the chairman said. "We will spend $120 billion in Afghanistan this fiscal year, and our decisions on resource allocations there affect our global posture elsewhere, as we see today in the Middle East. We have to ask at every turn if our strategy in Afghanistan is sustainable."
[…]
3) Senator Dick Durbin Questions Sending ‘One More’ Soldier to Die in Afghanistan
George Zornick, The Nation, May 3, 2011
http://www.thenation.com/blog/160377/senator-dick-durbin-questions-sending-one-more-soldier-die-afghanistan
Early on in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing [1] about Afghanistan today, Medea Benjamin of Code Pink interrupted a discussion about whether the United States should maintain current troop levels or draw down to a smaller force focused on counter-terrorism operations. "There is another opinion-just leave," she said.
Senator John Kerry (D-MA), the committee’s chairman, quickly gaveled the hearing into a brief recess, and Benjamin left the room. Had she stuck around, she might have been surprised to hear the number-two Democrat in the Senate essentially echo her position.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), the Democratic Party whip, asked by far the hearing’s most important question and one of the most pointed by a Democratic leader to date: "If you believe that resolution of this conflict by military means is highly unlikely and not a realistic basis for US policy, how can we send one more American soldier to fight and die in Afghanistan?" he said.
Durbin noted that "Afghanistan has been a graveyard of empires," and repeatedly invoked the human cost borne by American soldiers. "We are now in a very sterile conversation about diplomacy and foreign policy," he said. "The reality is they’re fighting and dying over there. And the question is-how long will we keep sending them?"
Aside from Durbin, other senators who attended the hearing-both Republican and Democrat-voiced serious concerns about extended commitments to Afghanistan. Not one openly called for staying the current course.
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) cited [2] President Obama’s recent $100 billion budget request for fighting the war in fiscal year 2012, along with a strategy that "appears to be devoted to remaking the economic, political, and security culture of that country," and said that "it is exceedingly difficult to conclude that our vast expenditures in Afghanistan represent a rational allocation of our military and financial assets."
Lugar’s concerns were echoed by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who said plainly that "I’ve been supportive of the administration so far, but I have a real hard time as we move forward." Menendez wondered aloud whether there was "an amount of money or plan that can actually work here."
The only other Republican to speak, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), also raised questions about the amount of money being spent. "I think the one thing that would stun the American people on the ground in Afghanistan, is how much we are investing in this country, and what we are investing in," he said.
President Obama will soon decide whether the July drawdown of troops will be substantial or simply a matter of optics. The hearing’s witnesses divided into two camps. Ann Marie Slaughter, late of the Obama administration, and Ronald E. Neumann, who served as President George W. Bush’s ambassador to Afghanistan from 2005–07, both advocated for extended American investment in the country.
Slaughter said she envisions a "secure, stable, and self-reliant" Afghanistan, despite the continued elusiveness of anything resembling that situation. "It may seem like an impossible job," Slaughter testified. "But the sooner we embark on it, the better the chances that we can get it done."
The Council on Foreign Relation’s Richard Haass, on the other hand, called for the end of combat operations against the Taliban, though not a total withdrawal-he wanted a small number of US troops to remain in the country, performing counter-terrorism operations.
"I do not believe…a quote-unquote ‘self-reliant Afghanistan’ is a reasonable goal," Haass said. "I think that is an open-ended commitment for the United States, militarily and economically, and I do not believe that that can be strategically defended, given the costs and given the opportunity costs; given all else we need to worry about in the world and given all else we need to worry about here at home."
Nobody yet knows to what degree President Obama will withdraw troops from Afghanistan this summer, but it is clear he’s gaining cover on Capitol Hill for substantial action.
Rep. Barney Frank told [3] Think Progress’s Faiz Shakir he now favors withdrawal. "People say, well, America can’t look like it was driven out with the mission not accomplished. We went there to get Osama bin Laden!" The Atlantic’s Elspeth Reeve counted [4] seven other House Democrats who spoke up in favor of reconsidering current troop levels in the wake of bin Laden’s death,
Even before bin Laden was killed, Obama may have been considering a serious drawdown. The Atlantic’s Yochi Dreazen reports [4] that Obama was already moving away from the idea of a token drawdown, and "with bin Laden now out of the picture, the White House may feel even freer to order a larger drawdown than most in the military would prefer."
Lugar’s criticism aside, Republicans aren’t likely to support a perceived retreat. House speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has already said bin Laden’s death "makes our engagement in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan more important not less." But with eroding Congressional support and polls showing [5] the public wants out of Afghanistan even if it’s not stable, that could be a tough position to hold.
[1] http://www.c-span.org/Events/Congress-Examines-al-Qaeda-After-bin-Laden/10737421273-1/
[2] http://foreign.senate.gov/press/ranking/release/?id=b8020272-c906-468f-a079-aac91ba7afd8
[3] http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/02/barney-frank-withdrawal/
[4] http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/after-bin-laden-lawmakers-question-afghan-war/37288/
[5] http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm
4) Lugar Says Obama Lacks Vision of Success in Afghanistan
Strategic Value Of Long-Term Engagement And Cost No Longer Justified
Press Release, Office of Senator Richard Lugar, Tuesday, May 3, 2011
http://foreign.senate.gov/press/ranking/release/?id=b8020272-c906-468f-a079-aac91ba7afd8
Senator Richard G. Lugar, the Ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, today said, "President Obama must be forthcoming on a definition of success in Afghanistan based on U.S. vital interests and a sober analysis of what is possible to achieve."
Lugar said that "with al Qaeda largely displaced from the country, but franchised in other locations, Afghanistan does not carry a strategic value that justifies 100,000 American troops and a $100 billion per year cost, especially given current fiscal restraints."
"Clearly it would not be in our national security interest to have the Taliban take over the government or have Afghanistan reestablished as a terrorist safe haven," Lugar said. "But the President has not offered a vision of what success in Afghanistan would entail or how progress toward success would be measured. The outcome in Afghanistan when U.S. forces leave will be imperfect, but the President has not defined which imperfections would be tolerable. There has been much discussion of our counter-insurgency strategy and methods, but very little explanation of what metrics must be achieved before the country is considered secure."
[…] Lugar offered four observations about the ongoing U.S. effort in Afghanistan:
"First, we are spending enormous resources in a single country. The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2012 included more than $100 billion for Afghanistan. We have approximately 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan and another 31,000 in the region that are supporting Afghanistan operations. We spent $9.2 billion in 2010, and we are spending more than $10 billion this year just to train Afghan security forces. President Obama has requested nearly $13 billion for training in 2012. Simultaneously, we are spending roughly $5 billion per year on civilian assistance mechanisms in Afghanistan at a time when most foreign assistance projects worldwide are being cut.
"Second, although threats to U.S. national security do emanate from within Afghanistan’s borders, these may not be the most serious threats in the region and Afghanistan may not be the most likely source of a major terrorist attack. Last February, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center Michael Leiter said in Congressional testimony that Yemen is the most likely source of a terrorist attack against American interests in the short term. American resources devoted to Yemen are tiny fraction of those being spent in Afghanistan. Further, we know that al Qaeda has a far more significant presence in Pakistan than in Afghanistan.
"Third, the broad scope of our activities in Afghanistan appears to be devoted to remaking the economic, political, and security culture of that country. But we should know by now that such grand nation building ambitions in Afghanistan are beyond our powers. This is not to say that we cannot make Afghanistan more secure than it is now. But the ideal of a self-sufficient, democratic nation that has no terrorists within its borders and whose government is secure from tribal competition and extremist threats is highly unlikely. The most recent ‘Section 1230 Report on Progress toward Stability and Security in Afghanistan’ indicates that improvements in Afghan governance and development have been inconclusive. All of the investments to date and the shift to a comprehensive counter-insurgency strategy led by General Petraeus have yielded some gains in select areas. The prominent caveat within the Defense Department report, however, and sprinkled across nearly all recent official statements by the Obama Administration is that these gains are ‘fragile and reversible.’
"Fourth, although alliance help in Afghanistan is significant and appreciated, the heaviest burden will continue to fall on the United States. We have contributed $26.2 billion to the Afghanistan National Security Forces from 2002 to 2011, while the rest of the world, donating through the Afghanistan National Security Forces fund, has provided $2.6 billion. Similarly the United States has provided $22.8 billion in non-military assistance since 2002, while donor partners have provided $4.2 billion. We are carrying the lion’s share of the economic and military burden in Afghanistan and this is unlikely to change. Alliance military activities in connection with the civil war in Libya further reduce the prospects for significantly greater allied contributions in Afghanistan."
Lugar concluded, "If one accepts these four observations, it is exceedingly difficult to conclude that our vast expenditures in Afghanistan represent a rational allocation of our military and financial assets. Our geostrategic interests are threatened in numerous locations, not just by terrorism, but by debt, economic competition, energy and food prices, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and numerous other forces. Some may argue that almost any expenditure or military sacrifice in Afghanistan is justified by the symbolism of that country’s connection to the September 11 attacks."
"We must avoid defining success there according to relative progress," Lugar said. "Such definitions facilitate mission creep. Arguably, we could make progress for decades on security, employment, good governance, women’s rights and other goals – expending tens billions of dollars each year — without ever reaching a satisfying conclusion. A definition of success must be accompanied by a plan for focusing resources on specific goals. We need to eliminate activities that are not intrinsic to our core objectives. We also need to know what missions are absolutely indispensible to success, however it is defined."
5) Lee, Leading House Progressives Pen Letter to President Obama Calling for Shift to Withdrawal in Afghanistan Following Bin Laden’s Death
Press Release, Office of Representative Barbara Lee, May 4, 2011
http://lee.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=57§iontree=35,57&itemid=2349
[full text of letter at link.]
Washington, DC – Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) was joined by Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Co-Chairs, Representatives Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), and fellow CPC Peace & Security Task Force Co-Chairs, Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Michael Honda (D-CA) and Maxine Waters (D-CA) in sending a letter to President Obama today renewing their call for a significant and sizeable reduction in U.S. troops in Afghanistan following the recent death of Osama bin Laden.
The Members noted how bin Laden’s recent death not only provided comfort to families of "the victims of his unconscionable attacks on innocent life" but also provided an opportunity to end U.S. involvement in America’s longest war. The letter also cites the growing bipartisan consensus to ensure that the scheduled July reduction in troops "meet the expectations of Congress (and) the American people."
Last March, these Members joined a bipartisan group of 76 House colleagues to call on the President to request that the July reduction in U.S. troops levels in Afghanistan be significant and sizable and executed in an orderly fashion. Recent New York Times/CBS polling shows that almost 50% of respondents believe that bin Laden’s death should lead to a reduction in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan.
[…]
6) Hope for Travel Abroad; Need for Travel between Gaza and West Bank
Gisha response to Egyptian announcement on easing passage via Rafah Crossing:
News Release, Gisha, Friday, April 29, 2011
http://www.gisha.org/index.php?intLanguage=2&intItemId=2003&intSiteSN=113
[Gisha is an Israeli NGO, whose goal is to protect the freedom of movement of Palestinians, especially Gaza residents. Gisha promotes rights guaranteed by international and Israeli law.]
Gisha expresses hope that Egypt will expand the ability of Gaza residents to travel abroad via Rafah Crossing, which has become Gaza’s gateway to the world, in light of Israel’s closure of Gaza’s airspace and territorial waters and restrictions on travel via Erez Crossing. Gisha notes the need also to permit passage of people and goods between Gaza and the West Bank, recognized by Israel as a single territorial unit whose integrity is the basis for a two-state solution.
Gisha notes that since June 2007, Israel has prevented Gaza residents from transferring goods for sale to Israel or the West Bank, as part of a policy to separate Gaza from the West Bank. Security concerns cannot explain the ban, as Gaza residents are permitted to sell limited quantities of agricultural products to Europe – via Israel and Israeli security checks. Gaza, Israel and the West Bank are part of a single customs envelope, in which free trade is to take place and in which customs regulations are to be uniform.
Any arrangement for permitting goods to cross via Rafah should consider the need to maintain the unity of the Palestinian economy, existing in Gaza and the West Bank.
Background information on Rafah Crossing:
Since Israel closed Gaza’s airspace and territorial waters and all but closed Erez Crossing to Palestinians, Rafah Crossing has become the gateway to the outside world for 1.5 million Palestinian residents of Gaza. Crossing via Erez (on the border between Gaza and Israel) is limited to "extraordinary humanitarian cases, especially urgent medical cases", preventing Palestinians from traveling between Gaza and the West Bank.
Rafah was closed following the capture of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in June 2006 and remained mostly closed until June 2010, when Egypt opened it in the wake of the flotilla incident. Between June 2010 and January 2011, 19,000 people per month on average crossed Rafah in both directions, 47% of the number of people who crossed monthly in the first half of 2006.
Today, passage through Rafah is limited to holders of foreign citizenship or residence, holders of visas (including students studying abroad) and those seeking medical attention or study in Egypt. Crossing for Palestinians is limited to those listed in the Israeli-controlled population registry. Since the regime change in Egypt, the number of people permitted to leave Gaza via Rafah has been limited to 300 per day. The crossing is currently open five days per week. Since the 2005 "disengagement", goods have not been permitted to pass via Rafah, except for humanitarian assistance which Egypt occasionally permits through Rafah.
7) Palestinian Factions Sign Pact to End Rift
Ethan Bronner, New York Times, May 4, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/world/middleeast/05palestinians.html
Cairo – Rival Palestinian movements signed a historic reconciliation accord here on Wednesday vowing common cause against Israeli occupation, a product of shifting regional power relations and disillusionment with American peace efforts.
Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Fatah movement and – at least until now – an American ally, joined forces with Khaled Meshal, the leader of Hamas, the Islamist group that rejects Israel’s existence and accepts arms and training from Iran.
At the signing ceremony inside Egypt’s intelligence headquarters, men from Mr. Abbas’s Palestinian Authority, which runs the West Bank, and from Hamas, which rules Gaza – who had for four years viewed one another as solemn enemies – embraced and even joked. But they also expressed steely mutual resolve.
"We will have one authority and one decision," Mr. Meshal said from the podium. "We need to achieve the common goal: a Palestinian state with full sovereignty on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital, no settlers, and we will not give up the right of return."
The forces that produced this unexpected reconciliation are many – the changes in Egypt, the troubles of the government in Syria, the failure of peace talks with Israel and Mr. Abbas’s plans to retire with a lasting legacy. But the efforts of Mr. Abbas to join hands with Hamas also underscore his determination to pursue Palestinian statehood unilaterally and his willingness to risk a major rupture with the United States and Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, visiting London, denounced the pact as "a tremendous blow to peace and a great victory for terrorism." The Obama administration has been cautious, saying it needs more details. In a sign of declining relations, Mr. Abbas gave the administration no warning of the deal, first publicized last week.
Much about the pact remains to be determined – how it will define resistance, whether the two sides’ militaries can be coordinated and what happens to American and European aid. But it was agreed that a government of unaffiliated technocrats would prepare for elections in the West Bank and Gaza within a year.
In a sign of early change on the ground, Hamas’s television broadcasts were beamed for the first time into the West Bank, and Palestinian Authority broadcasts into Gaza.
On Wednesday, Mr. Abbas saluted Palestinian youngsters who had taken to the streets on March 15. Compared with other recent uprisings, that rally in Gaza City was small potatoes – 10,000 calling for unity between Hamas and Fatah.
But it was the biggest turnout for an unauthorized demonstration in four years of Hamas rule. It was an indication of rising public discontent, the first clear indication that the regional earthquake would not spare the Palestinians. From that moment, negotiations grew serious.
Hamas had rejected a similar unity agreement signed by Fatah nearly two years ago but, in truth, that offer was halfhearted. Mr. Abbas, along with his allies, the old Egyptian government of Hosni Mubarak, the United States and Israel, wanted Hamas to be seen as the problem. A negotiated peace deal, he believed, would force Hamas’s hand later.
Mr. Abbas said last week that he had come close to an agreement with Ehud Olmert, then the prime minister of Israel, in 2008. When he tried to pick up negotiations with Mr. Netanyahu the next year, he faced a more hawkish approach. "He wanted Israeli troops in the valley and on the heights for 40 years," Mr. Abbas told a group of Israeli guests, speaking of areas in the West Bank. "That means a continuation of the occupation."
Therefore, from September 2010, when Mr. Abbas concluded that negotiations were doomed, he began down another path – reconciliation with Hamas and a campaign for a United Nations declaration of Palestinian statehood in September. He has repeatedly said that he will not run for the presidency again, and a number of people who know him believe he wants to end his career on a note of unity.
Hamas was brought on board through meetings in Cairo under the auspices of the new Egyptian government.
In late March, the new Egyptian foreign minister, Nabil el-Araby, invited a delegation from Hamas to Cairo to meet at the Foreign Ministry instead of the intelligence headquarters or a hotel meeting room – effectively upgrading them from militants to diplomats, some later said. "The foreign minister told them, ‘We do not want to talk about a ‘peace process,’ " said Ambassador Menha Bakhoum, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry. "We want a peace, and the only way to talk about peace is to end the divisions."
In turn, Hamas brought up a reopening of the Gaza border with Egypt, which had been kept essentially closed by Mr. Mubarak. The Egyptians said they would open it, and things moved quickly.
Developments in Syria, where Hamas’s political leadership is based, have also played a big role. The government of President Bashar al-Assad has faced widespread popular demonstrations in recent weeks and has responded with brute force. The Syrian government demanded that Hamas profess loyalty to it, but Hamas, which considers itself a popular movement, has demurred, threatening its Syrian ties.
The deal appeals to Hamas in part because it would remake the Palestine Liberation Organization, the overarching authority of Palestinian politics that now excludes Hamas. A committee to study changes will include the leaders of all the Palestinian factions – including Mr. Meshal of Hamas – and could end up being the main power in the coming year.
"Hamas will be part of the political leadership taking major decisions," said Mamoun Abu Shahla, a Gaza businessman and independent who has been involved in the process.
The difficulties the two sides face in reconciling their conflicting ideologies will be great. For now, while a committee negotiates the future of security cooperation and prisoners, each side will police its area independently. The Palestinian Legislative Council, the parliament where Hamas won a majority in 2006 elections, will also be revived.
Hamas’s rising influence could well mean that the United States, which labels Hamas a terrorist group, could cut off hundreds of millions or dollars in aid to the Palestinians.
Representative Steve Chabot, an Ohio Republican and the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, met with Mr. Araby, the Egyptian foreign minister, on Monday and came away arguing that the new transitional government was "a wolf in sheep’s clothing" and that Hamas could have unchecked influence over peace talks.
But Munib al-Masri, a West Bank businessman who has been promoting reconciliation, said the deal should be given a chance. "Hamas will change," he said in an interview. "Bring them in. Fatah used to be just like them."
Israel/Palestine
8) Outgoing Shin Bet chief calls fear of Hamas-Fatah deal ‘out of proportion’
Diskin calls Hamas acceptance of deal ‘a tactical move’ made in the context of wider unrest in the Middle East region.
Amos Harel, Haaretz, 04.05.11
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/outgoing-shin-bet-chief-calls-fear-of-hamas-fatah-deal-out-of-proportion-1.359825
Outgoing Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin said Wednesday that reactions to the reconciliation between rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah have been blown out of proportion.
"There have been attempts at reconciliation for a long time, as has the blame game between Fatah and Hamas, with each side blaming the other for the failure of the deal," Diskin told reporters in Tel Aviv. He refused to answer questions pertaining to the severity of politicians’ warnings regarding the deal.
Hamas accepted the current deal with Fatah following years of rejection, Diskin said, adding that the group had taken a "tactical, not a strategic, move" in agreeing to Fatah’s draft.
Diskin attributed Hamas’ change of heart to concern in the wake of developments in the region – particularly the potential collapse of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime.
The leaders of Hanas are trapped between their support of Assad and calls by Sunni clerics to overthrow the regime, Diskin clarified, adding that the Islamist movement is keen on improving its relations with Egypt and its new government.
The Fatah-Hamas deal is rife with clauses that may be difficult to implement, Diskin said, "In the years to come I expect to see a real reconciliation on the ground. For this to happen, there must be joint security mechanisms: Hamas representation in the West Bank, and Fatah representation in the Gaza Strip," he said.
The outgoing Shin Bet chief also dissented from Israeli proposals to freeze the transfer of tax money to the Palestinian Authority. "Overall, we have to give the Palestinian Authority money," he said.
"If we, the Americans and the West do not give money, there will be no Palestinian Authority – this a matter for strategic decision making," he added. "At the moment, as long as the Palestinian Authority remains in status quo, there is no reason to change our policies toward them or the security arrangements we have with them."
[…]
9) Daniel Barenboim brings ‘solace and pleasure’ to Gaza with Mozart concert
Israeli conductor voices support for non-violence and Palestinian state during performance for schoolchildren and NGO workers
Conal Urquhart, Guardian, Tuesday 3 May 2011 20.06 BST http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/03/daniel-barenboim-orchestra-gaza-concert
The orchestra arrived with the impact of a presidential motorcade, in armoured cars, with sirens wailing and flanked by dozens of armed men.
It was an unusual overture to a rendition of Mozart. But then, the arrival in Gaza of Daniel Barenboim, the world-famous Israeli conductor and his Orchestra for Gaza – featuring musicians from Paris, Milan, Berlin and Vienna – to play for an audience of schoolchildren and NGO workers was itself far from usual.
The orchestra set off from Berlin on Monday, stopped at Vienna and then landed at El Arish, close to the Egyptian side of the Gaza Strip, on a plane chartered by Barenboim himself.
As an Israeli citizen it is illegal for Barenboim to enter Gaza without a permit, and, as if that wasn’t enough, the recent murder of an Italian peace activist and fears that pro-Osama bin Laden groups in Gaza might seek revenge on western targets meant that the UN security team was on high alert.
Barenboim has previously played in Ramallah and holds an honorary Palestinian passport, and is widely praised for his attempts to reach out across the divide. In Israel, meanwhile, he has been attacked for promoting the work of Wagner.
He told his audience on Tuesday that the people of Gaza "have been blockaded for many years and this blockade has affected all of your lives."
The aim of his orchestra, he said, was to bring "solace and pleasure" through music to the people of Gaza and to let them know that people all over the world care for them.
Gaza is more accustomed to the sound of explosions, sonic booms and the traditional drums and pipes that accompany its nightly weddings than Mozart. Many religious leaders disapprove of music, and people in general prefer Middle Eastern-style music to Western classical or popular music.
Barenboim drew a burst of applause and then a murmur of appreciation as the orchestra began when he told the audience that they might recognise the first movement of Mozart’s Symphony No 40 as it was the basis of one of the celebrated songs of Fairuz, the most famous living singer in the Arab world.
The orchestra first played Mozart’s Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, which was warmly appreciated, but Barenboim’s speech at the end of the performance went down even better.
"I am a Palestinian ..… and an Israeli," he told the audience, who applauded the second statement only slightly less than the first. "So you see it is possible to be both."
He said the Israeli and Palestinian conflict was one between two peoples who believe they are entitled to live on a single piece of land rather than a conflict between two nations about borders, adding that the whole world understood that a Palestinian state should be established on the land that Israel occupied in 1967.
"Everyone has to understand that the Palestinian cause is a just cause therefore it can be only given justice if it is achieved without violence. Violence can only weaken the righteousness of the Palestinian cause," he said.
Referring to the revolutions in the Arab world and the nuclear catastrophe in Japan, he said that everyone should question their past actions. "Every musician here has played these pieces many times, sometimes hundreds of times. Yesterday we looked at this music as if we had seen it for the first time. We never accept that the next note will played the same way it was played before. Thinking anew is our daily activity. I hope all the people of this region can take note of that," he said.
Diana Rustum, 12, a pupil at a local UN school said she enjoyed the discipline of the musicians and the melody of the music. "I think it was different from Fairuz but just as beautiful," she said.
Abdul Rahman Abu Hashem, 12, insisted that he did not get bored during the hour-long performance. "It was very good," he said.
Japan
10) Cables Trace Strain in U.S.-Japan Relations
Martin Fackler, New York Times, May 3, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/world/asia/04japan.html
Tokyo –
[…] Scores of secret State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks give an inside view of Washington’s sometimes rocky relationship with Japan. The most recent cables are from February 2010, long before the earthquake and tsunami that devastated northeastern Japan on March 11 of this year. They also offer a detailed look at the United States’ response to the political upheaval that had just upended Japan’s long stagnant political landscape – the end of the Liberal Democratic Party’s almost continuous rule for more than 50 years.
After the Democratic Party of Japan won a landmark election in August 2009, American officials appeared uncertain in public how to react to the country’s new leaders and played down the damage to the relationship as teething problems in a nation that had seen opposition parties take power only once before since 1955. But in private, American diplomats were delivering a much more pointed message to the government of Japan’s new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama.
[…] Though the cables give a distinctly American view of events at a volatile time, they also provide glimpses of how the end of the Liberal Democrats’ long run in power had opened the floodgates in Japan for reconsidering the cold war-era security alliance with the United States. The cables show alarm and concern, in both the United States and Japan, about the Hatoyama government’s often clumsy and erratic efforts to lessen Japan’s postwar dependency on the United States and to flirt with closer ties to China.
The cables reveal that, in private conversations, American officials repeatedly warned the Japanese to take China’s military rise more seriously, though they avoided raising the issue in public for fear of angering China. They also played the China card to get Japan to be more cooperative.
An Oct. 15, 2009, cable described a delegation of a dozen high-ranking United States officials – including diplomats, Pentagon officials and a Marine Corps major general – who tried to persuade Japan to honor an agreement to keep an American air base on the Japanese island of Okinawa. They described the history of the agreement, and promised to address the concerns of the Democratic Party, which had vowed during the election campaign to move the base, Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, off Okinawa.
Then one of the Japanese officials asked whether the base could be moved to the United States territory of Guam. An American official bluntly replied that the United States needed to keep the base on Okinawa as one of three runways there that its forces would need to defend Japan from "the dramatic increase in China’s military capabilities," the cable recounted.
[…] In a cable dated Sept. 21, 2009, Kenji Yamaoka, the chairman of the Democrats’ Parliamentary Affairs Committee, is described as telling Mr. Campbell that a public discussion is needed in which the United States "lays out its overarching foreign and security policy and explains how it sees Japan fitting into it."
In other cables, Japan’s new leaders say frankly in private what they cannot say in public: that the current agreement to relocate the Futenma base to a site in northern Okinawa seems undoable because of local opposition.
The cables also show American officials’ irritation as the new Japanese government failed to provide a clear message on where it wanted to put the base, or on how it wanted to reshape the alliance. The cables also revealed the suspicion, even hostility, toward Mr. Hatoyama and his new government from career Japanese bureaucrats who had long run Japan.
In several conversations relayed in the cables, Japanese Foreign and Defense Ministry officials told the United States to "refrain from demonstrating flexibility too soon" when negotiating with the Democrats, while a top Japanese diplomat criticized Mr. Hatoyama as weak willed, ambiguous even by Japanese standards and "stupid."
[…]
Bahrain
11) Bahraini doctors who treated protesters will be tried in military court, says minister
Associated Press, Tuesday, May 3, 3:39 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/bahrain-authorities-arrest-2-former-shiite-lawmakers-as-part-of-crackdown-on-opposition/2011/05/03/AFHRTMeF_story.html
Manama, Bahrain – Several doctors and nurses who treated injured anti-government protesters during the months of unrest in Bahrain will be tried in a military court on charges of acting against the state, the justice minister said Tuesday.
Khaled bin Ali Al Khalifa said the charges against 23 doctors and 24 nurses include participating in attempts to topple the island’s Sunni monarchy and taking part in illegal rallies.
The announcement is the latest in the Sunni rulers’ relentless pursuit of Shiite opposition supporters after weeks of street marches demanding greater freedoms, equal rights and an elected government in Bahrain.
During the unrest, medical staff repeatedly said they were under professional duty to treat all and strongly rejected claims by authorities that helping anti-government protesters was akin to supporting their cause.
[…] At a press conference on Tuesday, the justice minister read the charges against the 23 doctors and the 24 nurses, which also include "promoting efforts to bring down the government" and "harming the public by spreading false news."
International rights groups say Bahrain is targeting medical professionals who treated injured demonstrators at the Salmaniya medical center, which was later overrun by the military.
At least 30 people have died since the protests in Bahrain began in mid February. Among the dead are also four opposition supporters who died in custody, including a blogger.
On Thursday, four anti-government protesters were convicted of killing two policemen during the protests and sentenced to death by a military court. Three other demonstrators got life sentences.
The military took over the state-run Salmaniya hospital in March, and doctors and patients said soldiers and police had conducted interrogations and detentions inside the complex.
Physicians for Human Rights said in a report last month that at least 32 health care professionals have been detained since Bahrain declared martial law. The report by the U.S.-based group detailed attacks on physicians, medical staff and patients "with weapons, beatings and tear gas."
[…]
Iran
12) U.S. leverage to crimp Iranian oil exports fades
Alejandro Barbajosa, Reuters, Wed, May 4 2011
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/businesspro-us-iran-oil-leveage-idUSTRE74327H20110504
Singapore – The United States may have missed its moment to apply more political pressure on governments to stop buying Iranian crude as rising fuel prices make Washington wary about further interruptions to the global supply chain.
U.S. leverage has waned after the civil war in Libya virtually halted the north African country’s crude shipments, highlighting risks to Arab exports from unrest across the region.
That has thrown oil markets off balance, sending Brent crude to a 32-month high above $127 a barrel in April and boosting American gasoline pump prices to near $4 a gallon.
Asia’s fastest-growing oil consumers, the main buyers from Iran, are more than ever prioritizing security of supply given that spare capacity is limited.
"Over the last two months, the instability in the Arab oil-exporting countries has created a very strong incentive for the major Asian oil importers to reconsider doubts, if any at all, about dealing with Iran," said Hooman Peimani, head of the energy security division at the Energy Studies Institute of the National University of Singapore. "Prior to that, there were many suppliers that India and China could potentially consider to decrease imports from Iran, at least to some extent. That time is already gone."
[…] As top exporter Saudi Arabia attempted to compensate for Libya’s outage, global spare production capacity shrank, at times becoming the thinnest in more than two years. That took away the supply cushion that would have served to calm markets if an escalation in U.S. pressure resulted in a disruption to Iran’s shipments.
Moreover, U.S. President Barack Obama is now feeling the heat from high gasoline prices, complicating any initiative that would further curtail oil supplies from major producers. Obama is unlikely to risk a further run up in prices triggered by a disruption to Iran’s output.
[…]
Jamaica
13) New Paper Finds Pro-Cyclical IMF Agreement and Debt Burden are Blocking Jamaica’s Economic Progress
IMF Agreement Could Worsen Debt Burden, Harm Health and Education
Center for Economic and Policy Research, May 4, 2011
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/new-paper-finds-pro-cyclical-imf-agreement-and-debt-burden-are-blocking-jamaicas-economic-progress
Washington, D.C.- A new paper from the Center for Economic and Policy Research finds that Jamaica’s economic and social progress has suffered considerably from the burden of an unsustainable debt; and that even after the debt restructuring of 2010, this burden remains unsustainable and very damaging. Pro-cyclical macroeconomic policies, implemented under the auspices of the IMF, have also damaged Jamaica’s recent and current economic prospects.
"Jamaica is a clear case where the IMF and other international actors have put the economy in a strait-jacket," said Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "Jamaica needs debt cancellation and economic stimulus to get out of its long slump, and it has not gotten either of these."
The paper, "Jamaica: Macroeconomic Policy, Debt and the IMF," by Jake Johnston and Juan Antonio Montecino, notes that the IMF program focuses on containing the wage bill, even though this can have negative consequences for a developing country that needs to increase spending on health and education. Curbs on the wage bill have put pressure on Jamaica’s struggling healthcare sector, creating uncertainty surrounding the treatment and payment of healthcare workers.
Despite the pro-cyclical measures that the IMF has been recommending, last week the Jamaican government announced it would seek a two-year extension of the current IMF agreement.
The paper notes that Jamaica is one of the most highly indebted countries in the world, with a total public debt of 129.3 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2009/10, and interest payments on the debt over the last five years averaging 13 percent of GDP. This debt burden has crowded out most other public investment, especially in education and infrastructure, which have stagnated over the last 18 years. Jamaica’s debt has also held back progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, with declines in detection and treatment of tuberculosis, and in primary school enrollment rates.
[…]
–
Just Foreign Policy is a membership organization devoted to reforming US foreign policy so it reflects the values and interests of the majority of Americans. The archive of the Just Foreign Policy News is here:
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/blog/dailynews