She came, she saw, she confounded: Clinton in Pakistan
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recently concluded visit to Pakistan has left us none the wiser about how the United States and its allies will end the Afghan war. In her public comments, she spoke of action ”over the next days and weeks – not months and years, but days and weeks”. She promised the United States would tackle Taliban militants in eastern Afghanistan in response to a long-standing Pakistani complaint that Washington had neglected the region when it decided to concentrate its forces in population centres in southern Afghanistan in 2010 (remember “government in a box”?).
She called, in return, for cooperation on the Pakistani side of the border to ”squeeze these terrorists so that they cannot attack and kill any Pakistani, any Afghan, any American, or anyone.” Between the two countries, they would tackle the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network and the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), or Pakistani Taliban.
But squeeze them to what end? To weaken all but the hard-core leadership of the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network so that they agree to lay down arms and rejoin the political process in Afghanistan? Or to entice them into serious negotiations through which they might be offered a share of power in Kabul, or accommodated in a “soft partition” of Afghanistan (an idea deeply unpopular among Afghans) which leaves them in control of the south and the east?
As Pakistani columnist Ejaz Haider wrote in Pakistan Today just before Clinton arrived, the current U.S. policy looks a bit like the dialogue between Alice and the Cheshire Cat. “‘Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?’ asked Alice. ‘That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,’ said the Cat. ‘I don’t much care where—’ said Alice. ‘Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,’ said the Cat.”
True, Clinton stressed the need for a peace process to reach a political settlement in Afghanistan. But that idea has been on the diplomatic agenda for nearly two years. By the second half of last year, we were hearing that the United States had endorsed talkswith all of Afghanistan’s main insurgent groups, including the Haqqani network. By January this year, western countries said there would be no preconditions set for insurgents entering peace talks – only end-conditions that they sever ties with al Qaeda, renounce violence and agree to respect the Afghan constitution. In February, Clinton stressed the need for negotiations in a landmark speech to the Asia Society which coincided with reports the United States had begun direct talks with the Taliban.
In other words, we have heard a lot about talk about talks without any explanation as to why these have achieved so little so far (some blame U.S. military strategy, others Pakistani interference, others Taliban intransigence, others poor Afghan governance). And the danger is that as long as these talks about talks continue without yielding results, all parties to the Afghan conflict arm themselves up in readiness for an escalating civil war.
True, Clinton admitted in public during her visit to Islamabad that the United States had held a preliminary meeting with representatives of the Haqqani network. But we already knew that. According to The Washington Post, U.S. officials met Ibrahim Haqqani, the brother of the group’s patriarch, Jalaluddin Haqqani, in a Gulf kingdom in August. The meeting was arranged by the head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, who also attended, it reported.
But that meeting does not seem to have gone well. It was followed by an attack on the U.S. embassy in Kabul which the United States blamed on the Haqqani network and which prompted outgoing chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen to describe the group as a “veritable arm” of the ISI.
Clinton has made clear the U.S. strategy will continue. ” We’re going to be fighting, we’re going to be talking and we’re going to be building,” she told reporters in Afghanistan. And even if that carries a ring of ”if at first you don’t succeed, try, try and try again”, that is no reason to dismiss it out of hand.
However much the United States and its allies are looking for a way out of the Afghan war, pressure is also mounting on Pakistan. Washington is stepping up efforts to bring supplies to Afghanistan through Central Asia – Clinton flew from Pakistan to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan – thereby reducing U.S. dependence on Islamabad/Rawalpindi even as Pakistan’s own deteriorating economic health is making it harder for it to risk losing international and U.S. financial support.
And more importantly India this month signed a strategic partnership agreement with Afghanistan – one unlikely to have been reached without U.S. approval — which gives India the capability, if not the intention, to put Pakistan under pressure on both its western and eastern borders.
Yet even as the United States doubles down, do also consider two quite different approaches, both of which have the merit of greater clarity but which are also diametrically opposed.
One of them I heard presented this month by Amrullah Saleh, the Tajik former head of the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS) and a fierce critic of talks with the Taliban. At a conference organised by the Asia-Pacific Foundation in London, he argued there was no reason to believe Pakistan would be any more inclined to cooperate with the United States now than it was when Washington sent in more troops to Afghanistan. “With that escalation, Pakistan did not cooperate. Why would Pakistan cooperate with de-escalation?” he said.
Rather than rely on Pakistan, he argued that the Afghan government must implement reforms to restore the trust of the Afghan people so they would at least have a state by 2014, when U.S.-led troops are meant to hand over responsibility for security to Afghan forces. And Kabul should change its policy of talks with the Taliban which had “blurred the narrative” for Afghans about who they were fighting, looking instead at reintegrating all but the 200 or so in the inner circle of the insurgency’s leadership..
But a scenario which led to a ceasefire and a political deal which left Pakistan and what he called its proxies with control over eastern and southern Afghanistan would offer only “a temporary, deceptive, stability”. The Taliban would remain militant in order to put pressure on Kabul and extort further concessions from the west. Such a deal might provide cover for a withdrawal of western troops, but would also lead to ”massive civil strife”.
The opposite approach is the one advocated by Pakistan, which – in somewhat unfortunately chosen words - is to “give peace a chance”. Articulated in detail in a report produced jointly by the Jinnah Institute and the United States Institute of Peace, it aims for a negotiated settlement giving Afghan Pashtun a bigger say in the political process and possibly including the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network.
According to this version, the U.S. position of fight, talk and build cannot work because the insurgents will not trust the Americans to negotiate sincerely as long as they reserve the right to use their very considerable force. Only a ceasefire on all sides would pave the way for meaningful talks on a political settlement.
The report, criticised to some extent within Pakistan, also notes what is perhaps one of the trickiest issues in the whole approach to Taliban talks: this is not just about Afghanistan. Whatever Pakistan really wants to happen in Afghanistan, and whatever it support it does or does not give to the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network, it is also dependent on them to keep control of the Pakistani Taliban (TTP).
According to this excerpt, those who contributed to the Jinnah Institute report questioned “the mis-perception that the Pakistani security establishment is unaware of the growing linkages between the Afghan Taliban and Pakistani militant groups.”
“ However, they argue that while the current links remain limited, it is precisely the fear of these growing into full blown operational cooperation and coordination that prevents the Pakistani state from targeting Afghan insurgent groups on its soil. Moreover, the security establishment is able to take advantage of the present linkages between these groups from time to time by persuading the Afghan Taliban to pressure the TTP and other North Waziristan-based militants to curtail their activities.”
Stretch that argument out further and you could make a case that Pakistan needs to get a reasonable deal for the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqanis in Afghanistan if it wants them, in return, to bring the Pakistani Taliban to heel.
So to get back to Clinton and the Afghan settlement. We have three possible approaches, with various permutations. The one currently favoured by the United States is to keep fighting, to keep the door open for talks, and to keep piling pressure on Pakistan in the hope that it yields results. The second – as expressed by Amrullah Saleh – is to take the idea of talks with insurgent leaders off the table altogether, end the confusion and build up governance within Afghanistan in the years that are left before 2014. The third is to seek a ceasefire, so that in the absence of violence, talks might take place in a more conducive atmosphere.
Any one of those approaches has its merits. But as long as all these conflicting ideas remain out there, we will see a lot of different groups lining up to argue with the Cheshire Cat.
Papandreou begs Greeks to help avert ‘catastrophe’
In an interview with the weekly Proto Thema newspaper,
Papandreou said the government was fighting to stop Greece
defaulting on its debts but the road ahead was hard.”I would very much like to guarantee everyone an immediate
solution, a better life today,” he told the newspaper in an
interview which hit newsstands on Saturday.”I would be the happiest man in the world if I could do that
but I can’t and I have a duty to be honest and tell this truth
to every Greek citizen,” he said.Next week parliament is due to pass measures including pay
and pension cuts and thousands of layoffs in the public service.Greece’s two main union federations have called a 48-hour
general strike which is expected to shut down much of the
country to coincide with the vote on Wednesday and Thursday.Separate strikes by customs officials and municipal workers
are expected to deepen the misery of ordinary Greeks by creating
fuel shortages and leaving garbage to pile up in the streets.On Saturday, thousands of demonstrators filled Syntagma
Square outside parliament as part of worldwide demonstrations
attacking the financial system.However, Papandreou dismissed any suggestion that Greece
could afford to walk away from a debt burden estimated to reach
162 percent of gross domestic product this year.He said he would be seeking the support of European partners
at a summit in Brussels next week — the latest in a long line
of emergency efforts to contain the crisis, which has spread
from Greece to engulf Ireland and Portugal and to threaten the
much bigger Spanish and Italian economies.”All our efforts aim at safeguarding our country’s
interests, the interest of the vast majority of citizens who
would experience a real catastrophe if Greece defaulted,”
Papandreou said.NOT ATLASHe said that Europe had to help Greece tackle a crisis that
now threatens the whole euro zone.”We are not Atlas which can take all Europe’s problems on
his shoulders,” he said, referring to a Greek mythological
figure who supported the heavens on his shoulders. “If Europe
cannot solve its problems, the consequences will be
unpredictable for all of us in Europe.”Papandreou’s ruling PASOK party has seen its ratings drop
sharply in recent months as it meets the tough terms of European
Union and International Monetary Fund aid, and has faced daily
protests by groups ranging from taxi drivers to lawyers and
municipal workers.At least two of Papandreou’s deputies have threatened to
vote against part of a new package. The government’s slender
majority is expected to hold up, with support from smaller
opposition parties, for the new austerity bill, however.Papandreou said the ruling party would have no reason to
exist if it did not “live up to the historical challenges of its
era,” and ruled out quitting his post.”All these months, I had to deal with challenges none of my
predecessors have ever experienced,” he said. “But I have never
thought of quitting, giving up the battle.”The government’s term ends in 2013 but many analysts see
snap elections on the horizon.
S.Africa mulling own metals exchange
JOHANNESBURG Oct 14 (Reuters) - South Africa is looking at
establishing its own metals exchange as part of a wider
government plan to extract more value from the country’s huge
mineral wealth, much of which is exported as ore rather than
being refined and processed locally.In a speech this week, Mines minister Susan Shabangu
stressed the importance of domestic metals exchanges in
“extracting maximum socio-economic benefits” from mineral
deposits.Ministry spokesman Bheki Khumalo said on Friday the
department had started to look into the possibility of setting
up an exchange, although stressed that it was still very early
days.”Ideally that is what South Africa would like to have,”
Khumalo said. “But the details have not been worked out.”South Africa is the world number one platinum producer and a
top gold and coal exporter, but in 2008 only 11 percent in
volume terms of the material extracted from the ground was
processed locally.The government has been pressing for more downstream
processing to boost national revenues and create desperately
needed jobs, but concerns about rigid labour markets and
intermittent power supply have dampened investment.
S’pore’s LionGold makes takeover bid for Signature Metals
Signature Metals produces gold at its flagship mine at the
Konongo gold project in Ghana, West Africa.
($1 = 1.281 Singapore Dollars)
RPT-US mortgage bankers grapple with consumer outrage
* Industry “under siege,” bankers say* Industry coping with new regulationsBy Joe RauchCHICAGO, Oct 11 (Reuters) - U.S. mortgage bankers attending
an industry conference in Chicago this week received something
they did not originally bargain for — a heavy dose of the
consumer anger against the financial system that has boiled
into protest rallies across the country.The Mortgage Bankers Association’s annual conference in
Chicago this week coincided with a protest march against
joblessness and income inequality that drew about 3,000
demonstrators to downtown Chicago on Monday evening.And while many of the attendees of the MBA event, which
ends on Wednesday, say they sympathize with the protesters,
others think their industry is being used as a scapegoat for
deeper economic woes.To some mortgage executives, the message is clear: the
industry is under siege. “I think anyone who thinks we aren’t
under siege is kidding themselves,” said one bank executive as
he watched anti-banker protests outside the conference on
Monday along with other participants who snapped pictures.Four years after the U.S. housing bubble burst, mortgage
banking executives say their business is under attack from
angry homeowners and lawmakers who view the industry as the
culprit behind the 2007-2009 financial crisis and subsequent
recession.Some mortgage bankers said the public criticism has begun
to intrude on their personal lives.One former senior industry executive, who declined to be
named, said he was confronted at a recent charity event.”A woman asked me how I could sleep at night, and (said)
she was glad that Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns failed,” the
executive said. When asked how often he is confronted, he said
it happens “all the time.”Others believe their industry has become a scapegoat, and
that they are being punished for loose lending practices that
that have long since been rectified.”We’re easy to blame,” said Hank Cunningham, president of
Greensboro, North Carolina-based Cunningham & Co, a mortgage
banking company.TRUST DEFICITThroughout the first two days of the conference, attendees
said they sympathized with the millions of U.S. borrowers who
face foreclosure and, in light of the protests, the MBA issued
a statement that amounted to a mea culpa.”We all recognize that our industry faces a trust deficit
with policymakers and the public and that people in our
industry contributed to the events that led to the financial
crisis,” it said.Easy lending terms helped many Americans stretch to buy
homes and a plunge in home prices has left more than a quarter
of borrowers in homes worth less then their mortgages.With the nation’s unemployment rate stuck above 9 percent,
banks are coping with millions of delinquent home loans, and
the total number of foreclosed homes is also in the millions.In August alone, there were 228,098 default notices,
scheduled auctions, or bank repossessions on U.S. properties,
according to RealtyTrac, a real estate research firm.The sour housing market was the backdrop to the protest on
the conference’s doorstep on Monday which drew a few hundred
participants pushing for foreclosure relief and calling for the
ouster Bank of America Corp CEO Brian Moynihan and
JPMorgan Chase & Co CEO Jamie Dimon, among others.During an afternoon question-and-answer session, two
protesters who had managed to get into the conference asked
Wells Fargo & Co home loans president Michael Heid how
he could sleep at night. Heid said the adversarial questioning
reminded him of testifying before Congress.MBA Chief Executive David Stevens said he understood the
protesters’ frustrations, and he recalled that after graduating
from college he had participated in a protest against a nuclear
weapons production plant in Colorado and was arrested.But he said the industry and its critics must work together
to fix the housing market. “You’re not getting anywhere to
rebuild this economy simply by yelling outside, that’s the
unfortunate reality,” he said.Indeed, in his opening remarks at the conference, Stevens
struck a tough tone, saying the trade group was “on the war
front fighting” against new industry rules, including those
included in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law put in place
last year in an effort to try to prevent future crises.
