Day: November 4, 2011
Useless idiots have their purposes
Tweeter Hani Sabra:
there’s no nice way to say this, so here goes: anybody who thinks damascus would abide by the plan is total, useless idiot.
I agree with the sentiment, but why then did the Arab League propose the plan, and why did Bashar al Assad accept it?
They aren’t idiots, and the plan serves their useful purposes. The Arab League is certainly not on the side of the protesters. Most of its members either already have, or would if the occasion arose, repress demonstrations like the ones occurring in Syria.
What the Arab League is trying to do is help Bashar. He understood the gesture: you pretend to give me a plan to end the violence, and I’ll pretend to end the violence. No one is fooled, but it at least buys a week, two or even three while the Arab League pretends to wait for implementation and Bashar pretends to implement. In the meanwhile, a lot of demonstrators get killed, hurt and discouraged. Maybe some of them will even agree to the dialogue with the government proposed in the plan. That would buy some more time.
What happens when this charade gets boring? Likely not much, unless the Arab League or the Security Council can be convinced to take more serious action. As regular readers know, my favorite proposal is diplomatic observers. If the Arab League were serious, it would have insisted on verification.
Why would Bashar accept? Only if he thinks he has things under control and can rehabilitate himself internationally by agreeing. What if he rejects? That at least shows him up for the lying bastard he is.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Save me from Mickey Mouse!
Mickey Mouse is what my generation calls something superfluous, silly or trite. Morning Edition today brought me news of American efforts to revitalize tourism in Pakistan’s Swat Valley:
That’s the Mickey Mouse I’d like to be saved from, because it is the kind of international assistance that gives international assistance a bad name. I’m not against Pakistanis vacationing in nice hotels, but I can’t think of any reason at all why U.S. taxpayer money should be spent trying to make it happen. And there are at least 137 million reasons why it should not (that’s the number of U.S. income tax returns).
This example raises broader questions about American assistance to Pakistan. Christine Fair suggested in testimony yesterday:
U.S. efforts to elicit changes in Pakistani society through its USAID program are misguided. First USAID’s efficacy can be and should be questioned. The U.S. Congress has had numerous hearings about aid to Pakistan—and Afghanistan—and the objective results of these engagements have been less than satisfactory given the price tag. This does not mean that the United States should not continue to help Pakistan with its problems. However, it should do so with less publicity and with greater focus on projects that are executable such as power, roads and other infrastructure.
I don’t agree with Christine’s emphasis on infrastructure, as I’d rather see that done through competent multilateral organizations (she is sympathetic with that option as well). U.S. assistance should be focused more on civil society and democracy support. If that means we can’t spend the $1 billion and more appropriated for assistance to Pakistan, fine with me.
Christine’s broader point is that we should stop expecting Pakistan to forge a broad, strategic relationship with the United States when our strategic interests diverge. Instead, she recommends a more transactional relationship–deals that involve a well-defined quid pro quo in which what each side gives and gets is clear and verifiable.
I have my doubts that will work either. But it is certainly a direction worth trying before we deep six the relationship with Pakistan altogether, which the Congress may be tempted to do (and has done several times in the past). If we get even a 50 per cent return on our money, it would be better than we are doing today.
In the meanwhile, let’s get rid of Mickey Mouse projects, which put at risk the already minimal 1 per cent of the Federal budget devoted to foreign affairs.
PS, also November 4: a USAID friend says I am completely wrong about the tourism effort in Swat, which is important because of the recent history of the fight against extremism, so here is what I could find readily about it. Certainly more informative than the NPR piece. Judge for yourself.
RSS - Posts
