For eight years the USA has been cutting aid to countries and it is showing. We know for a fact that poverty is the venue of the growth of terrorist networks. We simply can't allow it to happen.
The Bush/Cheney policies of isolating countries that did not cooperate with their priorities has expanded the terrorist networks globally and NOW it is taking huge efforts to correct a path pursued for its 'political uptick in the USA.' To cut aid to any country was a method sought after by the Republicans as a means to lower taxes at home REGARDLESS the overall outcome to the National Security of the country.
Published on Wednesday
October 1, 2003
by OneWorld.net
US Cuts Military Aid to Friendly Nations (click here)
by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration today cut over $89 million in military aid to 32 friendly countries because they refused to exempt U.S. citizens and soldiers from the jurisdiction of the new International Criminal Court (ICC)--the world's first permanent tribunal to prosecute the perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
... The cuts were mandated by the 2002 American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA), the purpose of which is to ensure that the ICC, which began operating at The Hague in the Netherlands last spring, can never gain jurisdiction over U.S. citizens....
Up to 99 million more to become poor in 2009 (click here)
By Amin Ahmed
Saturday, 25 Apr, 2009
12:28 PM PST
RAWALPINDI: The global financial crisis is imperilling attainment of the 2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and creating an emergency for development, warned an IMF-World Bank report released on Friday.
Most of the eight globally-agreed goals are unlikely to be met, including those related to hunger, child and maternal mortality, education, and progress in combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other major diseases.
The Global Monitoring Report 2009: A Development Emergency (GMR) warns that, although the first goal of halving extreme poverty by 2015 from its 1990-level is still reachable based on current projections, risks abound....
Everyone is right and everyone is wrong. Senator Levin is correct to speculate to the 'success' of the Pakistani government to secure its country from extremists. But, he is also wrong to withhold peaceful aid in an attempt to reduce budget commitments. That is what got the USA into this mess in the first place.
The Obama administration is correct in advancing aid to Pakistan to insure the people believe in their newly elected government, but, he is wrong to never ask for 'measured results' in a movement of disarmament of the Taliban or advances of peace or the lack of 'havens for al Qaeda.'
...Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), (click here) chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, raised questions about the Pakistani government's willingness to forcefully confront militants who have destabilized that country and neighboring Afghanistan.
"We've got ambivalent evidence as to whether or not they're committed to that goal," he said.The plan would offer $1.5 billion in economic assistance to Pakistan annually for the next five years, up from the current $500 million a year.The plan has been endorsed by President Obama and is a key part of his administration's Pakistan strategy. Supporters, including Vice President Joe Biden, argue that the aid will show the Pakistani people that the United States is committed to helping them....
The idea that the USA could literally, through leveraged aid, dictate the outcomes of peace and cooperation in Pakistan among its government with hopes of it extending to its people is unprecedented.
Clinton warned Pakistan of aid cut if no deal (click here)
Mon Mar 16, 2009 4:01pm EDT
WASHINGTON, March 16 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Pakistan's president and opposition leader over the weekend U.S. aid could be at risk unless they defused a crisis over a top judge, U.S. officials said on Monday.In a surprise move, Pakistan's government announced on Monday it would reinstate Iftikhar Chaudhry as chief justice, aiming to defuse a crisis and end protests by lawyers and activists that threatened to turn violent.The officials said Clinton telephoned on Saturday both President Asif Ali Zardari and his rival, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who had backed the anti-government lawyers.The officials said Clinton, who coordinated with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, had exerted strong pressure for a deal....
Literally, what we are witnessing with Pakistan is a return to democracy WITHOUT the pandering to militant extremists. In a country so impoverished, so demoralized it is nearly impossible to establish a central government that can leverage power to any particular outcome. What years of systematic abuse of the Pakistani infrastructure has resulted in, is a country that is in anarchy. It is difficult to get one's mind around, but, with the mass of people constantly striving to survive there is no semblence of authority, just 'day-to-day' existance in the way it occurs.
So, while Sharia Law touts charity as a pillar of its faith, it has to deliver in order to preside as an authority over and above the elected government.
Basically; and this is true of Somalia, Sri Lanka and other nations finding themselves in the turmoil only terrorist anarchy can bring; where there are people 'at risk' for 'alienation' from their once benevolent government there is very high odds they will develop terrorist economies which also include warlords, pirates and drug economies. To defeat 'the cause/sources' of these networks is as important as the destruction of the networks themselves.
There are several ways to destroy terrorist networks. One being violent overthrow as witnessed in Sri Lanka or one of benevolent intent with hopes of 'converting' the people back to a loyality of their governments while receiving 'good service' from that government.
In the case of Sri Lanka where there are high levels of civilian deaths being reported along with the destruction of the Tamil Tigers and their strangle hold over that country, the down side is that those 'scars' of war will not heal IF the 'successful' government cannot also deliver a benevolent economy after its victory. Hence, the strong need for the IMF to be able to lend to countries attempting to reclaim their sovereign right of peaceful existance within its own borders.
Why would 'peaceful persuasion' not work in Sri Lanka? Because it has proven to not work after the Tsunami of 2004. There was a huge relief effort to the nations effected by the December 24, 2004 tsunami. The relief efforts were supposed to prevent alienation of citizens from their governments, but, in the case of Sri Lanka, the opposite occurred.
Prior to the tsunami event the Tamil Tigers had a strong influence on the people. They had been established a long time and with any horrific event there was 'blaming' of the wrongful conduct of the people to have caused such an event to occur. The people already oppressed and somewhat loyal to the Tamil Tigers adhered to that reality while The West tried desperately to tell the people they were victims of a natural disaster with 'aid' coming from a world that cared about them.
Sri Lanka rejects Tamil Tigers' ceasefire (click here)
Government dismisses move as 'gimmick' and vows to continue fighting until rebels surrender
Gethin Chamberlain
guardian.co.uk
Sunday 26 April 2009 16.01 BST
The Sri Lankan government today flatly rejected a ceasefire declaration by the cornered Tamil Tigers and said fighting would continue until the rebels laid down their weapons and surrendered.
The government dismissed the ceasefire as a "gimmick" and said fighting was continuing around the no-fire zone, where up to 150,000 civilians are still believed to be trapped. The government disputes that figure.
According to UN officials, there was no sign of the exodus of civilians from the no-fire zone that would be expected if the Tamil Tigers had stopped fighting....
That did not happen in Thailand, it did not happen in Indonesia. The people of those nations had been better educated with a degree of loyalty to their government to turn from it at a time of crisis. Not that Indonesia had a walk in the park, it didn't, but it maintained sovereign influence over the entire of its country. Sri Lanka never gained what it had lost.
The Sri Lankan government has been very successful in their internal war to rid itself of terrorists. The Infrastructure of the Tamil Tigers is nearly destroyed and it is the view of the Sri Lanken government that a ceasefire would simply be a 'respite' to further disaster in their progress to eliminate the terrorist network from its country.
As with any of these efforts, including those in Pakistan, the terrorists use civilians as human shields. The people under the influence of the Tamil Tigers or in the case of Pakistan, the Taliban, are 'at risk' when their '? chosen ?' loyalty is that of terrorists. The governments care about their people, but, in actuality the governments first loyalty is to its sovereignty. A peaceful sovereignty.
In the case of Thailand, no one can state the coup which resulted in 2006 was an adverse result on the people. That has not been proven to be the case and for the most part, whether one agrees with it or not, there were few civilian deaths realized.
Q&A: Thailand's coup impact (click here)
A military coup in Thailand has seen the ousting of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
Why did the coup happen now?
Mr Thaksin, who came to power in 2001, has proved a controversial and divisive leader.
Although he was extremely popular with Thailand's rural poor, his abrasive style and huge wealth won him many enemies and appeared to split the nation.
Mounting protests earlier this year undermined his position.
But it was his easy victory in April's general election - subsequently declared invalid - that may have prompted the generals to act....
A successful elections was held in 2007 in Thailand as the generals had promised.
BANGKOK, April 24 (Reuters) (click here) - Thailand's prime minister ended a 12-day state of emergency in Bangkok on Friday and called for constitutional reforms in a bid to heal the deep political rifts behind recent violent protests."The lifting of the decree will send a signal to the world that Thailand is back to normal," Abhisit Vejjajiva told reporters after signing the order ending emergency rule in the capital and nearby areas....
Where these 'upheavals' occurred in Thailand, it was a result of 'populist' movement and not against that of oppressive government.Thai Protesters Say Violence This Month a ‘Mistake’ (Update1) (click here)
...A retrenchment by the protesters may help Abhisit as he seeks stability to revive an economy set to shrink for the first time since 1998. He has pledged to speed up political reforms and legal cases against demonstrators, including opponents who rioted this month and supporters in a rival group that took over Bangkok’s main airport last year to elevate him to power....
The problem with any 'expansive' policy as President Obama is committing to, is the 'chance' of failure. In other words, will the USA get what it was supporting or will the opposite result. In the case of Sri Lanka the opposite occurred, but, it was nearly predictable and here we are three and a half years later with the Tamil Tigers being eliminated from their potential. Not a bad return after the Global Investment following the 2004 Tsunami. There is, of course, still the final outcome to be realized when the Sri Lanken government (A long history of being a benevolent government.) actually returns peace and prosperity to their people, hence, (I dare be so bold.) "The Obama Doctrine" in support of the IMF.
If an analysis would be conducted of any of these countries of a resolve such as President Obama and the IMF is proposing versus the Bush Doctrine of war and conquest; the 'cost' in both human life and actual monies would be far less in the use of benevolent forms of persuasion than any form of war.
The 'Persuasion Doctrine' will succeed in Pakistan. The government wants to have its people provided for and wants to prove its worth to them. It will work.
The 'tricky part' to all this mess with Pakistan is the migration of 'soldiers of the Taliban' from Afghanistan to Pakistan in seeking shelter from an increasing presence of NATO. And I know there are those that will hate me for this, but, it is why the 'drones' are effective. They eliminate 'the haven' in Pakistan when USA drones cross the border to provide 'enough war' to stop the malevolent migration of Taliban.
The drones are a concern of both Pakistan's government and that of Afghanistan because the people complain (And more than rightfully so.) and become angry with them. It is 'the fear' of losing loyalty and control of their people that is providing 'impetus' to the terrorists' agenda in those countries. The USA military has to stop killing innocent people, but, it is easier said than done. The truly unfortunate reality that this dynamic portrays would be purely unnecessary if The Taliban were indeed a benevolent entity. They aren't and use such 'drone strikes gone wrong' as a weapon against the government.
To say the USA was in a far better position in the year 2001 to 'end it' in Afghanistan while adding stability to Pakistan is an understatement. Today is what it is and we are left to pursue its resolve.
