Afghanistan: West Fails to Deliver

Recently President Obama and other Western Leaders have announced the withdrawal of their troops from Afghanistan. In my view this implies nothing but an acknowledgment of a huge failure on our side.

There is a fact our politicians have to deal with: US and European public opinion considers the war is lost, and with upcoming elections on both sides of the Atlantic, they are trying to give satisfaction to as many constituents as possible. This will mean the end to 10 years of involvement, 130,000 military personnel, 48 countries, and 2,600 dead of which 1,600 Americans.

So roughly ten years after the conflict began, USA and Europe will leave behind a country still torn by corruption, armed struggle, feudalism and an ever-thriving drug business. But Bin Laden´s death is providing the excuse ( alibi?), and the apparent disarray of Al Qaeda seems to justify abandoning the theatre of operations.

The real problem is that nobody managed or even wanted to grasp the real nature of the Afghan conflict. From a military point of view, results are feeble at best. General Petraeus recently quoted a 3-5% reduction in insurgent attacks in June of this year. These attacks have nevertheless experimented a growth in boldness and efficiency, as the assassination of Ahmed Vali Karzai proves.

The West has decided to further finance the security services, to the point that the Afghans, who still have no running water or electricity for the most part, have the Army and the Police as only credible employers in the country.

Corruption is so large and extended, that billions of dollars in foreign aid have been “ lost” on the way and have ended in the pockets of the current Afghan leadership and their partners abroad. Internally, according to UNODC numbers published in Vienna, local Afghan citizens have paid out some 23% of the country’s GDP in bribes to officials.

President Karzai has no real alternative that the West can foresee, even though he only controls a small portion of the country, while the rest of the territory is in the hands of the Taliban, the Warlords (allies of the Government in theory) or is immersed in violence with no clear winner.

The country’s main source of income is foreign aid and opium, which is funny for a conflict that started with the reduction of the drug problem as one of the main objectives. In 2011, exports of opium have grown to their highest level yet.

In conclusion, another total failure for the West. We went in to help the local population achieve their “ aspirations of democracy and welfare”. But as said, the majority still doesn’t have access to electricity, education, health services or adequate housing, and women and ethnic minorities are no better off than before the invasion.

Globally there is no major improvement in regional stability, and terrorism is in no way defeated. And now we learn from sources in NATO and the US Administration that the real problem and attention is shifting to Pakistan!

In essence, we have learned nothing from the British and Soviet Empires and their own total failures in Afghanistan.

Obama's foreign policy

Jackson Diehl has published an article in the Washington Post a few days ago in which he reflects about Obama's foreign policy and titles it " Diplomacy by timetable". He argues that in the President's world, the clock rules all. I will lay out some quotes from this article which merits reflexion.

His conclusion is that the timetables of this administration are disconnected from a strategy. Process is always important to good policy, and yes, the Bush administration sometimes demonstrated what can go wrong when there are no deadlines. Yet in the Obama administration, the timetable is becoming an end in itself. The current Administration's most notable product has been the establishment of deadlines. He argues that the President's biggest achievements so far are not results but the would-be means to deliver them.

He then sets out a number of examples: Iraq was Obama's first timetable. His plan to withdraw troops in 16 months put him into contention in the 2008 Democratic primaries. By the time he took the office as president two years later, Iraq had changed utterly, and Obama's 16 months had come and gone. He then proceeded nevertheless to adopt  a similar, 18-month timetable, for ending US combat operations. He stuck to it despite Iraq's political impasse and it's increasing instability causing some Iraquis to question whether US policy amounts to  anything more than a mere timetable. And next comes the December 2011 date for full withdrawal. If Obama sticks to it, he will put the new US strategic partnership with Iraq at risk, and hand another advantage to Iran.

He then goes on to say that one clock is measuring whether US troops will be ready to begin handing off security to Afghanistan's army by July 2011, when the first withdrawal of American troops is to take place. Another clock faces Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as they try to conclude a framework agreement by next September, when the one year timetable Obama encouraged them to establish will expire. Yet another clock follows Iran's nuclear program. The administration has said that Iran is 2 to 5 years away from producing a nuclear bomb. If serious negotiations with the United States and its Security Council allies do not start soon or if Iran does not take some confidence-building steps away from producing weapons, that time frame will begin to overshadow the sanctions policy.

So, in all the major international issues: Iraq, Iran, the Middle East and Afghanistan, the timetable is becoming an end in itself.

And here comes the damning conclusion: it reflects a president who is fixed on disposing of foreign policy problems and not so much on solving them. 

Why do things right...?

Spain has announced that Spanish  troops will be leaving Kosovo before the middle of the year. 

The very young and ambitious Minister of Defense, Carme Chacón, whose whole purpose in life is to have a photograph of her published daily, made the announcement while visiting the troops this week. 

She managed her purpose: her picture is everywhere. Every major paper and TV station in the world has carried it. 

But she also managed to surprise everyone. Secretary of State Clinton has ordered her Spokesperson to express that surprise in unusually strong terms. Once again, after Spain chickened out of Irak in 2004, serious doubts arise about how reliable an ally this country is to NATO and the US.

Zapatero ( remember he was the only leader to remain seated while the American flag paraded past him) has been trying for years to be invited to the White House. Maybe this time round, with Obama, he won´t be either. The good thing about the US is that an insult to a National symbol is an insult to the Nation as a whole. Nation is a concept Zapatero cannot understand.

Other NATO allies have also expressed their surprise and in some cases dismay. The Czech Presidency of the European Union has said that Spain is the wrong example to follow.

Once again Zapatero and his group of amateur leaders ( Carme Chacon went straight from the ailes of a Department store to the Ministry of Defense) have tried to prove that, if you try hard enough, they can accomplish the " leit motiv" of his Government since 2004: Why do things right when you can just as easily do them wrong?

Expectations

So, yes, Obama has made the first of what I guess will be many efforts to tackle the situation, and he has failed to live up to my expectations. I thought so! and I said so! His Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner came out and said... nothing. And the markets lost nearly 5%.

This poses further questions. Do we know the quantity of toxic assets? Have we been told the truth up to now?

I must say I am extremely disappointed. I have written before that we need Obama and strong leaders as much as the US does, over here in Europe. And this is his first go at the problems that still await us ahead this year and the next.

The press coverage has been tremendous. Most believe that the plan was not well thought out. It is probably better if this is true. The other side of course, is the possibility that nobody wants the influx of money the Administration is wanting to pump in the system.

This has happened in some European countries also. In Spain, banks have been very reluctant to accept the money injected via auctions by the Government.

Governments are complaining that banks are failing to meet demand for credit. Banks, on the other hand, have started saying out loud that they would be irresponsible if they lend to those demanding credit now, and that solvent businesses and individuals are not among those demanding credit in these times.

Apuntes iberoamericanos: Obama y el bloqueo a Cuba

Yes I know it is in Spanish, but this is a good opinion about President Obama and Cuba by someone who knows very well what he is writing about. If you can understand the language, I recommend this post.

Apuntes iberoamericanos: Obama y el bloqueo a Cuba

Give it a try on all things form Latin America!

Shameless boasting!

 

Please allow me to boast shamelessly today. If you read yesterday´s post, before President Obama became the 44^th in our history, I sort of hinted that the Euro was a mistake, and certainly not such a good idea if we place our hopes in it.

 

Now, today I wake up to find a column by Paul Krugman, (yes that one!) saying the same thing about Spain, very close to me. (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/) .

 

Please understand this is the first time ever, that I have actually thought and written about something which agrees with what an Economist like Mr. Krugman believes.

 

What he says, and I only hinted, is that economies of the  likes of Spain, Ireland, Greece and Italy need, desperately, to become more competitive. Since the Euro zone discards devaluation, the only other solution is to drastically reduce salaries. So, we will have to face that indebtness is only part of our predicament in Europe. Competitiveness is a lot more crucial in these times.

 

That is what I called yesterday in my post, having to pay for the party we have had for these past years when we all thought we were rich people, with lots of money to spend.

 

The problem is that in a Socialist environment like in most of Europe, once you have obtained something by whatever means ( at the beginning it was through revolution now it is called “ social benefits”) you can never, by principle, go back. They become “ Human Rights” with ease and are no longer open for debate. At least that is the principle that European Socialists uphold. That is why they have this obsession with spending their way out of recession, thus worsening the problem they want to solve in the medium run.

 

However they don’t really have to care that much, because the investment in infrastructure they so loudly proclaim as the solution to most of our current problems, is bound to create a few jobs for workers coming from the housing sector and low level manufacturing sectors. But those are going to be more prone to vote for the Left anyway, whereas in the services sectors, at the very least hiring’s are coming to are halt, and layoffs, though still relatively limited, may grow in the next few months. But they happen to have fewer voters amongst these citizens anyway.

 

Who knows, if in Europe we keep down this road for long enough through this crisis and recession it may well be that Socialism will disappear once again from the political map. For a couple of decades at least. This is what happened after the crisis of the 70s in the UK with the coming to power of Thatcher and in the US with Ronald Reagan. Sort of a vaccination.

 

Just to add a little bit of spice to the whole issue of flexibility of the different developed economies, in his recent analysis, Andrew Garthwaite, Global Strategist at Credit Suisse, ranks 44 countries regarding their flexibility to adjust to cost reduction. It is no surprise to see that the most flexible country and therefore the one with the highest probability to regain its competitive status is the USA. Perhaps it is no surprise either to see that the last, number 44, is Spain. It ranks as the least flexible economy regarding labor costs. Therefore, it has the least chance to be able to regain competitiveness in a limited period of time, if ever.

 

There are worse examples and the IMF is all over them in the European Union. Take Hungary and Latvia for example.

 

But also take the differences between President Obama´s constant praise of his country and his people and the capacity we Americans have to work harder and come out of the crisis stronger than ever, and the small talk, yes small talk of some leaders who refuse to go to their Parliaments and prefer talk shows and You Tube videos to ask their countrymen to “ shop more intensely in this traditional sales month!!!”

 

In any case, I digress. The main purpose of this post was to share my pride at having got it “right” this time and to go along with  Krugman, an American Liberal, from someone like me who certainly is not one of those.

 

The fact is we are, at some time, going to have to tackle the competitiveness problem head-on. And without the possibility of devaluation, and politicians not wanting to accept that salaries and standard of living is going to have to come down substantially ( the IMF suggest a 5% cut in the public sectors of a few European countries), the only other way economists can think off is via exports.

 

But is this  a sensible thing to propose in an environment where manufacturing has being decreasing for decades, and these countries owe most of their GDP to the housing sector and services? I somehow don’t think so. 

The Big Day

Today is the big day. I, like tens of millions of people around the world, will spend the evening ( in Europe) watching President Obama´s every move and every word.

In the current world context and the bad news we get on a daily basis, we have to count on our leaders, and as I have written before, expectations are high regarding Obama´s capacity to steer us out of the current mess.

Since Ronald Reagan´s Inauguration expectations have not been as high. I hope we won’t be disappointed. I don’t think the US and the rest of the world could take it.

But, back home, we now we are back to thinking that maybe our money is not so safe in the bank. States are guaranteeing deposits, but now we learn that a number of European States would actually need to leave the Euro to be able to become competitive again, before any one of them defaults.

Can States default? They certainly have done so in the past. Some more than once under the same ruler. So are Ireland, Greece, Spain, etc any safer than those other countries? If so, why?

And we see that some leaders still believe that a country can spend its way out of a recession. Since when has this worked? I have not found a single example of this. I have, however, found a few of exactly the opposite, during the crisis of the 70s. Ask the British Labour Party for instance.

What has happened to a sound monetary policy and a responsible fiscal policy? Can they be maintained in a Euro zone in which internal differences are still so high?

I still remember ( it was only ten years ago after all) how proud I was when, on January 1^st early, I took my three children to line up at the bank ( yes they were open on that day!) to exchange their savings into Euros. Is it possible that all this will end being a bad dream?

And yet, if we dedicate ourselves to party and to live like rich people, someone, someday, is going to present us with the bill. And we will have to pay for it. We, or worse still, our children, those that stood in line to exchange their money into Euros.