Biden has some very good, sensible ideas on Pakistan.

[calteacherguy]

“A New Approach to Pakistan”
Center for U.S. Global Engagement
New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm’s College,
Manchester, New Hampshire
11/8/07

<snip>

Resolving the Crisis

To help defuse the current political crisis, we must be far more pro-active, not reactive and make it clear to Pakistan that actions have consequences. President Bush’s first reaction was to call on President Musharraf to reverse course. Given the stakes, I thought it was important to actually call him – which is exactly what I did. I also spoke to opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. President Musharraf and I had a very direct and detailed discussion. I told him how critical it is that elections go forward as planned in January, that he follow through on his commitment to take off his uniform, and that he restore the rule of law to Pakistan.

It was clear to me that President Musharraf understands the consequences for his country and for relations with the United States if he does not return Pakistan to the path of democracy. Now, President Bush finally got around to calling Musharraf yesterday. As a few of you may know, I’m running for President and I can tell you this: if I’m elected, I won’t wait five days to pick up the phone or delegate matters of this magnitude to my secretary of state or to my ambassador. There is too much at stake to leave this kind of conversation to others.

If President Musharraf does not restore his nation to the democratic path, U.S. military aid will be in great jeopardy. I would look hard at big-ticket weapons systems intended primarily to maintain the balance of power with India, not to combat the Taliban or Al Qaeda: hardware like F-16 jets and P-3 maritime surveillance aircraft. President Musharraf doesn’t want this aid suspension – and neither does the military establishment whose support he needs. Nor can they afford for this crisis to undermine confidence in Pakistan’s economy, which has already taken a hard hit. So I believe there is incentive for cooler heads in Pakistan to prevail. But if they don’t and if President Bush does not act, Congress almost certainly will.

Building a New Relationship

Beyond the current crisis lurks a far deeper problem. The relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan is largely transactional — and this transaction isn’t working for either party. From America’s perspective, we’ve spent billions of dollars on a bet that Pakistan’s government would take the fight to the Taliban and Al Qaeda while putting the country back on the path to democracy. It has done neither.

From Pakistan’s perspective, America is an unreliable ally that will abandon Pakistan the moment it’s convenient to do so, and whose support has done little more than bolster unrepresentative rulers.

It is time for a new approach.

We’ve got to move from a transactional relationship -- the exchange of aid for services -- to the normal, functional relationship we enjoy with all of our other military allies and friendly nations. We’ve got to move from a policy concentrated on one man – President Musharraf – to a policy centered on an entire people… the people of Pakistan. Like any major policy shift, to gain long-term benefits we’ll have to shoulder short term costs. But given the stakes, those costs are worth it.

Here are the four elements of this new strategy.

First, triple non-security aid, to $1.5 billion annually. For at least a decade. This aid would be unconditioned: it’s our pledge to the Pakistani people. Instead of funding military hardware, it would build schools, clinics, and roads.

Second, condition security aid on performance. We should base our security aid on clear results. We’re now spending well over $1 billion annually, and it’s not clear we’re getting our money’s worth. I’d spend more if we get better returns—and less if we don’t.

Third, help Pakistan enjoy a “democracy dividend.” The first year of democratic rule should bring an additional $1 billion -- above the $1.5 billion non-security aid baseline. And I would tie future non-security aid -- again, above the guaranteed baseline -- to Pakistan’s progress in developing democratic institutions and meeting good-governance norms.

Fourth, engage the Pakistani people, not just their rulers. This will involve everything from improved public diplomacy and educational exchanges to high impact projects that actually change people’s lives.

This plan would fundamentally and positively shift the dynamic between the U.S. and Pakistan. Here’s how:

A drastic increase in non-security aid, guaranteed for a long period, would help persuade Pakistan’s people that America is an all-weather friend… and Pakistan’s leaders that America is a reliable ally. Pakistanis suspect our support is purely tactical. They point to the aid cut-off that followed the fall of the Soviet Union… to our refusal to deliver or refund purchased jets in the 1990s… and to our blossoming relationship with rival India. Many Pakistanis believe that the moment Osama bin Laden is gone, U.S. interest will go with him.

When U.S. aid makes a real difference in people’s lives, the results are powerful. In October 2005, after a devastating earthquake, American military helicopters delivering relief did far more to improve relations than any amount of arms sales or debt rescheduling. And the Mobile Army Surgery Hospital we left behind is a daily reminder that America cares.

To have a real impact on a nation of 165 million, we’ll have to raise our spending dramatically. A baseline of $1.5 billion annually, for a decade, is a reasonable place to start. That might sound like a lot – but it’s about what we spend every week in Iraq. Conditioning security aid— now about three-quarters of our package— would help push the Pakistani military to finally crush Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Aid to the Pakistani people should be unconditioned — that is, not subject to the ups and downs of a particular government in Islamabad or Washington. But aid to the Pakistani military and intelligence service should be closely conditioned — that is, carefully calibrated to results. Like it or not, the Pakistani security services will remain vital players – and our best shot at finding Bin Laden and shutting down the Taliban. Their performance has been decidedly mixed: we’ve caught more terrorists in Pakistan than in any other country— but $10 billion later, Pakistan remains the central base of Al Qaeda operations. We must strike a much better bargain.

A “democracy dividend” – additional assistance in the first year after democratic rule is restored -- would empower Pakistan’s moderate mainstream. The Bush Administration’s Musharraf First policy was understandable -- at first. Musharraf had broad support, and in the wake of 9/11 he seemed committed to the fight against Al Qaeda. Six years later, the General is diverting his military, his police, and his intelligence assets from the fight against the terrorists to a crackdown on his political opponents.

The Pakistani people have moved on. Hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets to protest Musharraf’s unconstitutional rule— and hundreds have been killed or gravely injured in the process. The Democracy Dividend would help restore the moral currency this administration has squandered with empty rhetoric about democracy. And it would enable the secular, democratic, civilian political leaders to prove that they—more than the generals or the radical Islamists—can bring real improvement to the lives of their constituents.

Last, we’ve got to engage the Pakistani people directly, and address issues important to them, not just to us. On Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinians, Kashmir, Pakistanis want a respectful hearing. We owe them that at least that much.

Ask an ordinary Pakistani to list his top concerns about America and you may get answers unrelated to international grand strategy: our visa policy and textile quotas.

Or she might raise Abu Ghraib and Gitmo or water-boarding and other forms of torture the Bush Administration still refuses to renounce. Pakistanis don’t see these as mere “issues.” They see these things as a moral stain on the soul of our nation. In my judgment, so should we.

Creating the Conditions for Success

This new Pakistan policy cannot succeed in isolation. Conditions in the region and in the broader Muslim world – conditions that the United States can affect – will make a huge difference, for good or for bad. We’ve got to connect the dots – to be, as I suggested at the outset, smart as well as strong. First, there’s what we should do.

To increase the prospects that Pakistan will take the lead in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, we should rededicate ourselves to a forgotten war: Afghanistan. When we shifted resources away from Afghanistan to Iraq, Musharraf concluded the Taliban would rebound, so he cut a deal with them.

Redoubling our efforts in Afghanistan – not just with more troops but with the right kind… and with a reconstruction effort that matches President Bush’s Marshall Plan rhetoric… would embolden Pakistan’s government to take a harder line on the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Second, there’s what we should not do. Consider all this talk of war with Iran. It is totally counter-productive to achieving our ends in Iran… but also in Pakistan. In Iran, it allows President Ahmadinejad to distract the Iranian people from the failures of his leadership… and adds a huge security premium to the price of oil, with the proceeds going from our consumers to Iran’s government. And in Pakistan and also Afghanistan, anything the fuels the sense of an American crusade against Islam puts moderates on the defensive and empowers extremists. It is hard to think of a more self-defeating policy.

History’s Verdict

History may describe today’s Pakistan as a repeat of 1979 Iran or 2001 Afghanistan. Or history may write a very different story: that of Pakistan as a stable, democratic, secular Muslim state. Which future unfolds will be strongly influenced—if not determined— by the actions of the United States.

I believe that Pakistan can be a bridge between the West and the global Islamic community. Most Pakistanis want a lasting friendship with America. They respect and admire our society. But they are mystified over what they see as our failure to live up to our ideals.

The current crisis in Pakistan is also an opportunity to start anew… to build a relationship between Pakistan and the United States upon which both our peoples can depend – and be proud.

http://www.joebiden.com/getinformed/speeches?id=0090

I'm hoping Obama wins the nomination and Biden becomes his VP. If not, I'd have no problem enthusiastically supporting Biden for President. We need a strong foreign policy leader on the ticket this time around.

If Hillary wins (hope she doesn't) I hope the ticket is Clinton/Clark.

We have to address foreign policy and national security clearly and strongly with our choice of ticket this time.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Yes, he does. He's really winning my heart now that Clark is out and Richardson is stumbling. nt

[Think82]

2. Kick...

Wow... I'm sorry for any snide comments I might have made at you in the past, Calteacherguy! I like Obama, too. I'm hoping for a Biden/Obama ticket.

[jillan]

3. Calteacherguy - I have to hand it to you. I think you are one of the few people that has really

spent time researching all the candidates.

Sometimes, I giggle because you change your mind so often, but I am beginning to see that you are someone that is taking the time to be informed on all of the candidates. And for that, I applaud you!:applause:

[Steely_Dan]

9. Love That Pic

...Experience does matter.

-Paige

[gateley]

4. Thanks calteacherguy - I find myself looking for Biden's statements on all

the situations in the ME and Pakistan and I'd be doing that even if he wasn't my candidate. He's the only one who's leveling with us and he knows and understands far better than Condi/Bush.

When it comes to what's going on in the world, we're all in this TOGETHER. :grouphug:

[daninthemoon]

5. Biden has a lot of good ideas about a lot of issues. He is my

second choice behind Kucinich. I would readily support him.

[jillan]

6. Great avatar dan!

[John Q. Citizen]

7. I'm not sure that continuing from the perspective that the war on terror is a good idea,

is such a good idea.

There is quite a lot of evidence that Biden wants to do just that, at least from his public statements and from his web site.

I think that's what has gotten us into this mess, and I don't believe staying that course is in our countries best interest.

That said, I think internationalism is the only way to go in terms of foreign policy. I'm not opposed to non-military aid, and i think that's how one makes friends with people, you lend them a hand when they need it, and you do so freely.

I would sum up our foreign policy for the last 50 years as being based on oil and drugs. our interest in Afghanistan is the pipeline from the Caspian Basin through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. The drugs finance off the shelf and out of public view military operations and bribes, both at home and abroad.

Pakistan comes into this equation because of the influence they can exert on Afghanistan, and because we need the pipeline through their country as well. Honestly, we could care less about Democracy in Pakistan, except that it provides us with an alternative reason d'etre, and because if the people of Pakistan can be convinced that they live in a democracy, they are likely to be more passive and manageable, and that equals stability. Which is good for our pipeline and our alternative funding sources.

My problem with Biden is much more based on his domestic agenda which in my view is lacking. His health care plan isn't. It's more of the same neoliberalism at home. More war on drugs. More police on the streets.

Musharraf is going to hold elections under marshall law. He's already charged his political opponents with treason, so any election is just going to be for show so that we can just keep going basically on the same course. We will call it an election, and Biden can take credit for shaping up Pakistan.

[PatSeg]

8. I understand your point, but any candidate who

appears even slightly weak on national security is dead in the water and the whole Democratic party will suffer.

I have to disagree with you on domestic issues though. Too much attention is paid to what is perceived as negatives, and his stands on civil rights, violence against women, and constitutional law are conveniently swept under the rug.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. I'm not sweeping those under the rug. Tell me did he support the

the Patriot Act both times?

The warrantless sneek and peek provisions were found to be unconstitutional by a Federal Judge.

I expect it may go to the Supreme Court. Any idea of his view on that?


I think Americans are only so "strong" on defense because our leaders keep telling us that any deviation would result in the completew defeat and occupation of the country. it's the same fear mongering we've been fed for over half a century.

John Kerry, who has sterling foriegn policy credentials pointed out we should treat terrorism as a law enforcement problem, and he's right.

[karynnj]

12. Kerry's position was far more thought out than just saying it was law enforcement

- that was what the Republicans said he said. In reality, he said that the effort would be mostly international law enforcement and intelligence, but occasionally military. He spoke of the military part being the use of special forces to go after clusters of terrorists, often in conjunction with the country they are in.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. Yes, and I simplified. But that's not anything like a "war." It's a measured

and much more effective response that doesn't turn whole areas and populations into sypathizers with law breakers.

And it treats the situation like what it is. Essentially a law enforcement issue.

Not exclusively, and only, but essentially.

And many of the problems could be handled by following the money. No money no operations.

The vote on the Iranian guard pissed me off. I don't know when the Iranian guard has been purposely targeting civilian populations to effect a political agenda. Ditto for calling insugents "terrorists" who attack the occupation forces.

The use of the term terrorist has experienced mission creep.

[goodgd_yall]

15. Good posts, John Q.

[gateley]

13. Biden voted for the Patriot Act and for re-authorizing it. He voted no on

extending the Patriot Act's wiretap provision.

[gateley]

11. Biden has introduced legislation for Darfur, for Burma, and for support in

other countries I didn't even know existed. I don't think those come under the oil/drugs banner.

Biden's Pakistan plan for example stresses an approach to assist them in terms of education, greater employment opportunities, etc., - looking for a PEACEFUL solution.

On the other hand there are real threats to us and to the people of the world. Just look at the number of people killed daily.

And your statement:

Musharraf is going to hold elections under marshall law. He's already charged his political opponents with treason, so any election is just going to be for show so that we can just keep going basically on the same course. We will call it an election, and Biden can take credit for shaping up Pakistan.

Biden can take credit for shaping up Pakistan? And the rest of your post was so rational.

He's not pro-Musharraf - I've heard him say he'd do all he could to help Bhutto if she were to become a player again. He's pro-peaceful resolution. I have faith in him that we'd hear about it if Musharraf continues his dictatorial ways and I also have faith he would work hard to support a solution that was the best for the people of Pakistan and for the safety of the region.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. Thanks for your responses and I'm not trying to blame Biden for policies that have

basically been the same for a long time now.

And as i said, I'm not opposed to foreign aid for social development, I think it's smart as well as good politics.

But Biden, like any good candidate, is using the situation in Pakistan to put his foreign policy credentials on display. While it's true, I don't hold it against him, any more than I hold it against Dennis that he used a privilege motion to introduce impeachment on the house floor. It's the political season. It's what candidates do. At least smart candidates.


Burma is interesting in that Standard Oil operates there and provides a big chunk of the income the regime gets. Also, the area where Northern Thailand meets Laos and Burma is the golden triangle, formerly one of the major sources for the worlds heroin supply. Poppies are still grown and heroin is produced there but it's been eclipsed by Afghanistan. Back during the Vietnam war era though that was the hot spot. It's interesting that where ever our CIA sets up shop that drugs seem to then follow. You may also be aware that the Balkans have become a major transshipment route to Europe.

So please don't take offense, none was intended. I do have some reservations about Biden on domestic policy, as I said, and I'm not sure that he really envisions major changes to our foreign policy, but perhaps basically more or less the same policy done smarter.

I saw him speak via the net at the JJ dinner in Iowa, and he said, the American people need to be told the truth, and he emphasized that. However, in his piece in the OP he didn't mention anything about the planned pipeline through Afghanistan, even though that's one of the primary reasons the US
wants good relations with Pakistan, and is worried about at least the appearance of Democracy there.

I can't say I'm surprised at all that he doesn't say that, but nonetheless he doesn't. And he isn't unique in that either, so don't think that I'm holding him to a different standard.