Afghanistan and negotiation

source of image

The Afghan hostilities must be re-formulated. They have become known collectively as an interminable war that needs an “exit strategy”. The problem is that it has been mainly conceived in terms of armed conflict.

It must be accepted, however, that in addition to armed attacks, the coalition has been involved in much constructive activity: the building of schools and hospitals, health-related prevention programs, the inclusion of women in education and political participation, and the institution of a certain democratic, elective and governing political process.

But one crucial element is lacking: negotiation with the Taliban and the Al Qaeda. They exist as a loosely knit amalgamation of discontented men and women, and they won’t be bombed (or wished) out of existence. There are a number of associated groups, probably also weakly-linked clusters of individuals, that acknowledge and identify with the same angry sentiments. Often they have violent and intransigent strategies and beliefs, and they have an undeniable influence in the modern Muslim world. It is important to talk to their representatives.

When you don’t talk to the “enemy” you attribute more power to it than it really has.

There is even evidence that Al Qaeda was invented as a concrete organization; it was part of a U.S. strategy in 2001 to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence. However, what Al Qaeda lacks in any solid organizational reality, it retains as a highly-charged emotional and conceptual rationalization for angry and violent gestures against what must also be called a non-existent enemy: The West. This is all a terrible case of objectifying a number of fantasies. The dead on both sides, however, are very real.

In the dark Bush-years of U.S. politics, any conversation with an American leader was considered a “reward” to be administered like M&Ms in Skinner-type behavioral experiments. This lead to the isolation of the administration’s personnel and the aggrandizement of their own self images.

Negotiation is a tool. You don’t negotiate with people you already agree with; it is an activity you carry out with people who believe differently and who have dissimilar interests, even when you believe the “other side’s” way of thinking is dark and dangerous. In fact, the importance of finding the middle ground increases when divergences are the greatest.



Nik Gowing, a well known reporter, interviewer, and debate leader on the BBC, recently lead one of the “World Debate” sessions with a discussion of the Afghan conflict. He was accompanied by diverse representatives and stakeholders of this multi- faceted struggle.

He ended with a comment that I will paraphrase from memory:

We have to rename what is happening in Afghanistan; it should no longer be called a war. It needs another qualifier.

Dennis Kucinich and peace

n an article titled "Give Peace a Chance", Mat Bivans mentions a bill in Congress to establish a Department of Peace in the United States Government. The bill was introduced by Dennis Kucinich . The New York times (I don’t have the reference) referred to it as a proposition emanating from the “radical Left”.

Good grief!! Why is peace a radical idea? Why is it associated with the Left? Don’t the Republicans want peace, too? Someone should ask them directly.

From whence the fear of the U.S. Democrats?

ince when does bipartisanship signify democratic process? The electorate chooses which representatives it wants in Congress, and the winning majority certainly doesn’t have to cajole the minority party into agreeing with those principles that the voters used when they picked them. Frankly I do not understand the Democrats! See this article by Peter Grier.

And then there's the one about Saint Peter...

This is a wonderful Saint Peter I photographed in a local gallery in the high Miranda hills to the south of Caracas. The lady who takes care of the exhibits puts different things in the hand that holds they keys to heaven. This time it’s some kind of branch; sometimes it’s a flower or even a feather: a bit of humor for such a serious subject. I think the Saint has the trace of an ironic smile. Or maybe it's a wry grimace.

Republican hypocrisy

Source of Ben Sargent cartoon, from the NY Times


Democratic members of Congress act as though they need the Republicans to tell them it’s ok to act. The Republicans didn’t need that kind of approval when they were in power under Bush’s presidency. It’s time for Democrats to be on TV explaining the health bill to the public and to be in regular contact among themselves doing the same thing.

After that, those congress members who are prepared to deny health care to the nation should renounce their own very complete and comfortable coverage.

Also, all the complaining about how much health care costs is hypocrisy: nobody complained in the Bush years when cash was piled onto ships with bulldozers to be shipped off to Iraq, and nobody demanded accountability for its later use. And the disaster that came from years of unsupervised banking and stock-market practices certainly has not been not cheap to remedy. When Republicans recommend thrift and belt-tightening exercises they really mean they want to continue their highly questionable free-access to limitless resources. I do not want to give the impression that I think previous profligate economic practices justify present ones. Rather, I believe it is important to uncover the lie behind Republican fiscal posturing.

Bipartisanship is not dead; it never existed. The Republican message is based on fear-mongering and outright lies. If the gentlemen and gentle ladies from the other side of the Congress don’t become more aggressive they will be destroying a unique opportunity for inclusive action and history will not be kind to them.

Nominal presidents

am listening now to an interview that Charlie Rose is conducting with the historian Garry Wills.

The interviewee is reviewing the history of executive secrecy that developed in the States after WWII that came out of the invention and use of the atomic bomb. With that secrecy, came huge potential for presidential power. In fact, after armistice in the middle 1940's, Congress never again exercised its constitution right to declare war (or to deny the President’s request to wage one); since then it has always been a personal, presidential decision.

The United States are very close to having a consecutive succession of temporarily elected monarchs. Remember that old TV program “Queen for a day”? Well there are now nominal, four-year kings.

Mr. Wills remembers how Congress didn’t even know that the States was bombing Cambodia during the Vietnam conflict. Present-day members of Congress deny knowing about the Bush-era “extraordinary renditions” and the astonishing violation of human rights that happened in Guantanamo.

But the President’s power is, as mentioned, largely nominal, sort of like that Queen Elizabeth II. He is a front-man for a huge and controlling apparatus of hidden decision-makers. The President may come to power with a reform agenda, as in fact Obama did. But once in his four year term he has to face unelected career-men like military and intelligence personnel who are very hard to contradict. Presidents come and go; the generals and agency heads often stay on for the next term.

So election promises fade away and the professionals keep a tight hold on the ship of state. As Mr. Wills commented in his interview, if Obama pulls the soldiers of fortune out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and if he puts limits on agencies like the CIA, they might start to open closets where they keep their skeletons. And since the States depends on them now, what if he needs them later, before he can reassemble a proper citizen army? (And imagine the uproar if he would ask more Americans to die in these undeclared wars for just a soldier’s wages!)Not even the Roman emperors dared to do that.

References:
Ornate letters: http://retrokat.com/medieval/leil.htm

A praying mantis visits me....

There once was a lady from Mantis
Who used computational tactics
She climbed to the screen
Deep meanings to glean
And to gain additional practice.