Month: June 2015
Kidnapped
The Wilson Center Wednesday hosted a conversation entitled Pirates, Islam, and US Hostage Policy with Michael Scott Moore, a freelance journalist for Spiegel Online and a former hostage of Somali pirates. Haleh Esfandiari, Director of the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center, moderated. Moore related h
is experiences as a hostage of Somali pirates for 2½ years. He also discussed the recent change in US hostage policy.
In 2012, Moore, a dual American and German citizen, was covering a trial of Somali pirates in Hamburg. German public defenders argued that the alleged pirates were merely fishermen made desperate by overfishing from illegal trawling. Moore met Somalis at the trial who arranged for him to travel there to learn more.
Moore flew to Somalia, where he interviewed a pirate boss who framed his actions in terms of a struggle against Europeans. He cited legitimate complaints, like illegal tuna trawling, but his main motivation was greed, not ideology.
A few days later, Moore was ambushed by a truck with a mounted cannon. A dozen gunmen jumped out, pulled him from his vehicle and beat him. The kidnapping was well planned. His kidnappers knew he was American. His captors had been looking at a picture of him on a cellphone before his capture. A fellow captive was taken 50 miles offshore of the Seychelles, 700 miles from Somalia. Both Moore and the Seychellois were originally held on a $20 million ransom demand by pirates pretending to be disgruntled fishermen. But qat addiction, not overfishing, is the main cause of desperation among young Somalis. Qat is an expensive habit and Moore never met a Somali pirate who was not addicted.
Moore’s guards were unaware that the US does not pay ransom. If the pirate bosses knew of the policy, they cynically believed they would receive money anyway. The kidnappers were opportunistic and asked for money from all sources: the US and German governments as well as Der Spiegel. They updated him on supposed negotiations with the US. It took them a year and a half to realize that they would not get money from that source. Moore thinks that President Obama’s clarification that families will not be prosecuted for paying ransoms is positive. The past practice of telling families they could be prosecuted caused confusion and limited their efforts to help their loved ones.
Deterrence could reduce hostage taking, Moore suggested. A consistent rescue policy would be one way to accomplish this. A few days after his capture, a Navy Seal team rescued two other American hostages and shot their captors dead. If this happened consistently, pirates might think twice about taking hostages. However, the wishes of families must be honored, since hostages sometimes die in rescue attempts. Policymakers must allow families to choose whether they would like the US to attempt a rescue. Consistent punishment, such as the death penalty, could also be an effective deterrent. The pirates tried in Hamburg in 2012 were jailed for several years, which is not enough.
Moore had previously assumed that pirates could not be devout Muslims because theft is forbidden in Islam. However, his guards prayed five times per day. Moore asked whether they saw a contradiction. At first, they explained that they were just guards and their bosses were un-Islamic thieves. However, pirate bosses do not hire guards who are not fully on board with the work. The guards also claimed that they were protecting Moore from the Somali terrorist group al-Shabab, but received a salary from the pirate bosses.
The guards later claimed that piracy and hostage taking are not haram (forbidden), provided that the victims are infidels. The guards would point out wild pigs and ask Moore if he wanted ham. Moore believes the bosses used a dehumanizing narrative of captives as pig-eaters to convince the guards that what they were doing was all right. Like ISIS, whose leaders are often former Ba’athists, Islam is not the motive for the leaders of pirate gangs. They spread ideas in Islamic terms to motivate their foot soldiers.
Ultimately released for $1.5 million, Moore views the outcome as a miracle. Straying from the political into the deeply personal, he related how his belief that his death was imminent made him reflect on how he had lived his life. He felt that he had fallen short in caring for others. He urged the audience to think each day about how they can do better for their loved ones.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Talking with terrorists
“The United States does not negotiate with terrorists” is a phrase engraved in every American’s mind because of its common use in the media and government statements. Replete with the idea that Americans will not lower themselves to the terrorists’ level, the phrase has created an implicit international standard that negotiation with terrorists is unacceptable. On Wednesday, June 24, Jonathan Powell, former Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Tony Blair, challenged this notion at a talk with Ian Wallace, Senior Fellow of the International Security Program at the New America Foundation. The talk was based on Powell’s new book, Terrorists at the Table.
According to Powell, every government claims it will not negotiate with terrorists, but ultimately does so. He finds this “collective amnesia” frustrating when government actions clearly show there’s value in talking to terrorists. Powell asserted that people’s opposition to negotiation stems from three beliefs—talking to terrorists appeases, legitimizes and rewards terrorists for their behavior.
These beliefs, however, are completely unfounded. Powell argues that talking to terrorists is not equivalent to agreeing to their terms and only legitimizes them in the short-term, which is a worthwhile sacrifice if the result is long-term peace. Moreover, the idea that talking to people is a reward and not talking to them is punishment is a childish approach. Powell emphasized the importance of an “adult” approach towards such a grave issue.
Powell’s call for communication stems from a desire to reduce the common mistrust between the governments and terrorists. A conversation allows terrorists to share their stories and grievances and opens a process that can lead to a resolution. Otherwise, the vacuum fills up with more violence.
These insights are partly a result of Powell’s experience negotiating with the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland, which culminated in the Good Friday Agreement. The 1998 Agreement followed three failed negotiations, which Powell used as an example to highlight the importance of persistence. Initial setbacks shouldn’t deter governments from pursuing channels with terrorists, because failed agreements serve as building blocks for a successful future agreement.
Conditions for fruitful negotiations are a “mutually hurting stalemate” and strong leadership within opposing parties. The former refers to the point at which both parties have exhausted the will and resources to continue fighting, which gives them to communicate with each other in nonviolent ways. Reaching this point can take a while, even with increased military engagement between the two parties. But Powell urged governments to initiate communication channels, because history shows that leaving communication too late renders it useless. Powell cited General Petraeus who admitted that in Iraq, the US government delayed too long before talking to those “with American blood on their hands.”
Powell also mentioned the value of third parties in negotiations. Often governments are reluctant to involve a mediator, because they don’t want to lose control of the discussion. The UN can be the third party in situations demanding conflict resolution, but Powell thinks it has little success. Instead, he pointed to the effectiveness of smaller governments and NGOs, which can be more discrete.
Powell believes there is potential to negotiate with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Critics of this belief make the distinction between old terrorists and new terrorists, claiming that the latter’s religious drive precludes them from being rational counterparts in a negotiation. But Powell is convinced there’s room for communication, especially because the alternatives are bleak. The Kurdish and Shia’ forces have gained ground in Iraq and Syria, but they can’t make a transformative difference without foreign boots on the ground, which is not an option. This means there is no effective strategy unless a negotiating channel is opened.
PS: Powell was preaching to the about to be converted, as President Obama announced yesterday a policy allowing (but not requiring) talking with terrorists about hostage issues. But it will be hard to confine the talks to only those.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ransom, publicity and talk
The change of policy on hostages announced today is a welcome one: it made no sense for the US government to be threatening their families with criminal prosecution and even less sense for the government to continue to claim that it refuses to talk with terrorists holding US citizens. The announced formation of a new interagency office to handle intelligence on hostages and improvements in how the government interacts with families are also welcome.
I can well imagine that complaints about the Obama Administration’s handling of hostage families and negotiations are justified. My own family has instructions to go public in a big way if my sometimes perilous travels put me in the hands of kidnappers. In the absence of public pressure my former colleagues at the State Department, where I served for 21 years, and the National Security Council will prefer to claim to be working quietly, and quietly forget I exist.
But we should not be sanguine about the impact of these moves on the frequency with which Americans are kidnapped and the resources available to terrorists. Allowing private parties to pay ransom increases the incentive to kidnap Americans. It will likely also result in the payment of millions to enemies who will spend the money to do more harm to other Americans.
According to the State Department only three private U.S. citizens were kidnapped in terrorism-related incidents in 2014 (one in Nigeria and two in Afghanistan). Based on news coverage, many more Europeans were captured. The New York Times reports that ransom payments bankrolled Al Qaeda to the tune of $66 million in 2013, much of it from European government sources. ISIL in the last year or two has been far more active in kidnapping than Al Qaeda ever was. Both the numbers of Americans kidnapped and the total revenue provided to our enemies will likely increase under the new policy.
The sad fact is that American willingness to allow families to pay will generate greater terrorist focus on Americans, who are presumed to have the means. That of course is untrue of many of us. Nor is the USG prepared to ante up, unlike the Italian, French and other European governments. This puts Americans in a double bind: more likely to get kidnapped than in the past and less likely to pay up relative to other nationalities. The predictable result is more kidnapped and dead Americans, not fewer, at least until the kidnappers get the nuances.
The decision to talk with terrorists, without making any real concessions to them, also provides an incentive for kidnapping, as recognition and status are often among the goals of extremist groups. But this was a policy more honored in the breach than the observance. The US government has been talking with terrorists in secret, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, for decades. It will still be necessary to evaluate case by case when talking might be productive, whether of release or delay in harm to hostages.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks June 22-26
1. A New Climate for Peace: Taking Action on Climate and Fragility Risks (Report Launch) | Monday, June 22nd | 3:00-5:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The ultimate “threat multiplier,” climate change is increasing the challenges facing the U.S. development, diplomatic, and security communities. “A New Climate for Peace: Taking Action on Climate and Fragility Risks,” an independent report commissioned by the members of the G7, identifies seven compound climate-fragility risks that pose serious threats to stability in the decades ahead. Join leaders from the development, diplomatic, and security communities and the report’s coauthors for the U.S. launch of a “New Climate for Peace.” The high-level interagency panel will explore how these climate-fragility challenges are changing the way the United States and its partners work, and will also identify opportunities for joint action to address them. Speakers include: Alexander Carius, Co-Founder and Managing Director, adelphi, Geoffrey D. Dabelko, Senior Advisor, Environmental Change and Security Program, Professor and Director of Environmental Studies, Ohio University; Former ECSP Director, Roger-Mark De Souza, Director of Population, Environmental Security, and Resilience, Wilson Center, Alice Hill, Senior Director for Resilience Policy, National Security Council, White House, Christian Holmes, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and Environment, and Global Water Coordinator, U.S. Agency for International Development, Melanie Nakagawa, Policy Planning Staff, Office of the U.S. Secretary of State, Andrew Selee, Executive Vice President and Senior Advisor to the Mexico Institute, Jonathan White, Rear Admiral, Oceanographer and Navigator of the Navy, Director of Task Force Climate Change, U.S. Navy, and David Yang, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, U.S. Agency for International Development.
2. Turkey, the Kurds, and the Middle East: What the Turkish Elections Portend for the Region’s Future | Tuesday, June 23rd | 10:00-11:30 | The Hudson Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The recent Turkish elections indicated the strength of Turkish democracy. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s bid for unrivaled executive power was rejected by Turkey’s voters, demonstrating the growing political power of the country’s largest minority group, the Kurds. Commentary on Turkish politics typically focuses on Islamism, Erdogan’s ambition, the nature of the Justice and Development party, and the various political scandals of the last few years. The reality is that more significant changes in the country are going relatively unnoticed. Turkey’s shifting demographics—rising Kurdish birth rates and lower Turkish birth rates—suggest that this key NATO ally is undergoing a fundamental transformation. What does this mean for Turkey and the rest of the Middle East, particularly countries that have large Kurdish populations including Iraq, Syria, and Iran? What challenges and opportunities will this present to American policymakers in the coming years? Speakers include: former U.S. ambassador to Turkey James Jeffrey; Tolga Tanis, the Washington correspondent for the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet; Gonul Tol, founding director of the Middle East Institute’s Center for Turkish Studies; and Eric B. Brown, Hudson Institute senior fellow and co-editor of Current Trends in Islamist Ideology. Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Lee Smith will moderate the discussion.
3. Envisioning the Future of Urban Warfare | Tuesday, June 23rd | 3:00-4:30 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Approximately sixty percent of humanity will live in urban areas in the near future. These billions of people will not just inhabit cities, but megacities that will be economic, cultural, and political centers – and potential conflict zones. Conventional discussions about the future of warfare often fail to capture the epic challenge of preparing for – and preventing – urban warfare in megacities. With that in mind, the Art of Future Warfare project will host a discussion on Envisioning the Future of Urban Warfare. It will be the capstone to a war-art challenge calling for graphic novel, or comic book, illustrations revealing what urban warfare might look like in the 2040s and 2050s. To address this important topic, Max Brooks, New York Times bestselling author of World War Z, will join Jon Chang, the writer of the Black Powder Red Earth series, along with the winner of the contest. The best illustrations will be on display for all to see and the panelists will discuss the battleground that is expected to encompass sixty percent of all people in the near future. Most importantly, they will tell us what we should worry about, and what is merely conjecture.
4. The Challenges of Democratization and Economic Recovery in Zimbabwe | Wednesday, June 24th | 10:00-12:00 | National Endowment for Democracy | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Nearly two years after the new constitution was signed into law, Zimbabwe’s democratic progress remains stalled and the economy is again in crisis. Please join us for a panel discussion to identify the challenges that must be overcome in order to reverse Zimbabwe’s current trajectory as well as explore opportunities for local and international actors to encourage political reform and economic recovery. Panelists include: Ambassador Bruce Wharton, United States Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Ibbo Mandaza, Executive Chairperson, SAPES Trust, Tawanda Mutasah, International human rights lawyer, Charles Msipa, Former President, Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries. Moderated by Imani Countess, Regional Director for Africa, Solidarity Center. Introductory remarks by Dave Peterson, Senior Director for Africa, National Endowment for Democracy.
5. Pirates, Islam, and U.S. Hostage Policy | Wednesday, June 24th | 12:00-1:00 | The Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Middle East Program and the Africa Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center present a conversation with Michael Scott Moore, freelance journalist, Spiegel Online and author. Moore will discuss his two and a half year ordeal as a captive of Somali pirates, with a focus on certain myths about hostage-taking.
6. Eradicating Boko Haram Sustainably: An Integrated Regional Approach | Wednesday, June 24th | 2:00-3:30 | The Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | In recent months, Boko Haram has expanded its raids from Northern Nigeria across the border into Northern Cameroon. The attacks, including attacks in March and April which killed numerous Cameroonian villagers, have mainly been attempts to obtain more supplies for the group. The spread of Boko Haram across borders highlights the need for regional cooperation to halt the group. This week, President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria announced plans to conduct talks with Chad, Cameroon, Niger and Benin to form a regional military force to combat Boko Haram. Join the Wilson Center for a meaningful discussion on ways to combat Boko Haram, both from the perspective of a U.S. official and a prominent Cameroonian activist who has traveled to the Far North of Cameroon, where Boko Haram attacks have been taking place. Speakers include: Kah Walla, President of Cameroon People’s Party, U.S. Official (to be confirmed).
7. Annual Global Missile Defense Conference | Thursday, June 25th | 8:30-5:00 | Atlantic Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Missile Defense is a critical element for the United States’ strategy to defend its homeland and its collaborative efforts to secure the territories of its allies and partners in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. In each of these regions, the combination of increased volatility, if not conflict, and new deployments by potential adversaries of increasingly capable ballistic missiles has made missile defense collaboration all the more challenging and urgent. The Atlantic Council’s annual missile defense conference convenes leading missile defense and regional security experts to analyze the future trajectory of global missile defense issues. The conference focuses on how current and prospective geopolitical developments are shaping the requirements and opportunities for missile defense collaboration in Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia Pacific and will include a panel addressing the programmatic and technological challenges that define success and failure in missile defense programs. The conference will also feature an opening address by former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James E. Cartwright.
8. Rouhani at Two Years: An Assessment on the Cusp of a Nuclear Deal | Thursday, June 25th | 12:00-1:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | During President Rouhani’s first two years in office, attention has understandably been focused on Iran’s nuclear negotiations with the P5+1. Yet these two years have also witnessed important developments—and conflicts—in the sphere of politics, the economy, human rights and social policy. Our panel will examine this broad spectrum of issues. Speakers include: Robin Wright, USIP-Wilson Center Distinguished Scholar, Suzanne Maloney, Interim Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution and Karim Sadjadpour, Senior Associate, Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
9. Beyond Centrifuges: The Geopolitical Implications of an Iran Deal | Thursday, June 25th | 2:00-3:30 | Stimson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND |As negotiators work towards a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran by the June 30th deadline, there is much more at stake for the U.S. than just centrifuges and sanctions. While a deal has been contested by U.S. allies in Israel and Saudi Arabia, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen says a deal could “rebalance American influence” and that “detente with Iran might better balance our efforts across the sectarian divide.” How can a deal provide new options for the U.S. to resolve some of the most important challenges in the region? Join the National Iranian American Council at Stimson Center for a timely discussion with Peter Beinart, contributing editor for The Atlantic and National Journal; Fred Kaplan, War Stories columnist for Slate; Trita Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council; and moderator Barbara Slavin, South Asia Center Senior Fellow for the Atlantic Council.
10. One Year Since Caliphate Declared: Combating ISIL | Thursday, June 25th | 6:30-8:00 | World Affairs Council | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Nearly a full year after it declared itself a caliphate, ISIL has greatly expanded its territory in Iraq and Syria, in addition to gaining the allegiance of terror networks around the globe. In the territory under their control they have effectively implemented a strict form of Sharia law, heavily utilizing corporal punishment as a means of enforcement, and they have been accused of committing genocide against ethnic and religious groups. The question remains of how the United States’ and Coalition allies’ strategy will change to more effectively address the spread of ISIL’s ideology and their expansion of territory. Our speaker panel includes the knowledgeable and versed voices of Dr. Shadi Hamid; a current fellow at the Brookings Institution – Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World in the Center for Middle East Policy. Thomas Sanderson is the co-director and senior fellow in the Center for Strategic International Studies Transnational Threats Project. Bryan Bender, defense editor for Politico, will moderate the discussion.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Townsend on terror
Since the 9/11 attacks, counter-terrorism has defined the US security context, sometimes at the expense of civil liberties. Yet the growth of terrorism seems unabated, with the rise of extremist groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). On Thursday, Fran Townsend, former Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Adviser to President George W. Bush, shared her thoughts on Iran, ISIS and US strategy in the Middle East at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The event was moderated by Nina Easton, Senior Associate at CSIS, Editor and Columnist at Fortune, and Chair of Most Powerful Women International.
ISIS vs. Al Qaeda
Just when the US started making significant dents in Al Qaeda’s operations, ISIS flooded the world with a series of alternative terror tactics. Townsend thought ISIS a far more dangerous enemy than Al Qaeda. The caliphate was a notional idea for Al Qaeda, but it is a real territorial idea for ISIS.
ISIS is attacking the “near enemy,” local populations and governments in the Middle East to take control of their lands, whereas Al Qaeda tried to mobilize its forces against the “far enemy,” the West. Al Qaeda fought a war of attrition in which it wanted to bleed out the West militarily and economically. ISIS is fighting a war of acceleration, in which its influence is quickly spreading across the Middle East. The group has already established itself in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and in parts of Saudi Arabia. Further expansion in Pakistan—which has nuclear weapons—can have devastating consequences.
Townsend also noted ISIS’s ability to attract women who are not only being convinced to marry a “martyr” to elevate their status but also to join the men as fighters.
Counterterrorism Efforts Against ISIS
Townsend explained that in order to deny ISIS its battle space, the US must carry out a two-pronged solution on the cyber and military fronts. In cyberspace, the US government must withhold speeches and videos that further ISIS’s agenda. Townsend specifically referred to the beheading videos, which she thought should not be protected by the First Amendment. She also said yberspace must be filled with a counternarrative, government funded but not controlled.
For the military effort, Townsend urged the US to send advisers and trainers to help Arab allies with intelligence and logistics. Originally there were complaints that the US was fighting the War on Terror alone with other countries providing funding and intelligence support, but lacking military commitment. Now, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are showing unprecedented military commitment, but they cannot be successful without American support.
Failure of Phase IV Operations
Townsend attributed the breeding grounds for violent extremism to the failure of Phase IV operations. These operations are designed to follow military efforts and help build civilian institutions. After the fall of Gaddafi in Libya, it was clear the Libyan government had trouble getting back on its feet, but the US failed to provide much-needed security assistance, training and support as well as institution-building for political parties. Syria has also faced a similar situation. The lack of civilian institutional structure in these countries has precipitated the largest refugee crisis since World War II, which in turn has become the recruiting pool for Al Qaeda and ISIS for coming generations. According to Townsend, our children will fight the next wave of terror against children “who have watched their parents slaughtered, mothers abused sexually and otherwise.”
Iran
Regarding the pending Iran nuclear deal with the P5+1 countries, Townsend is pessimistic that it is possible to cut a good deal. She believes the negotiations started with the premise that the US would deny Iran nuclear weapons capabilities, but the Administration has slowly backed itself into discussing how large Iran’s nuclear capabilities will be.
Townsend emphasized that the Obama administration needs to do a better job of explaining the difference between an agreement and a treaty to Congress, which has the right to review the deal and veto it. She also called on the Administration to support the democratic movement in Iran as it has in Egypt. She has already engaged in a bipartisan effort to communicate with the National Council of Resistance in Iran, which believes in democratic principles, freedom of press and religion, and advancing women’s rights.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Afghanistan: from bad to worse
Tuesday the United States Institute of Peace hosted a panel entitled Can Afghanistan Stabilize as US Forces Plan their Exit? Panelists included 
William Byrd (USIP Senior Expert in Residence), Ali Jalali (Former Minister of the Interior of Afghanistan and USIP Senior Expert in Residence), Scott Smith (Director, Afghanistan and Central Asia Programs, USIP), Moeed Yusuf (Director, South Asia Programs, USIP). The panel was moderated by Andrew Wilder (Vice President, USIP Center for South and Central Asia). A link to a full video of the conference can be found here.
Overview
Wilder presented an overview of the situation in Afghanistan. The Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) have had more casualties this year alone than the US military has had over the entire course of the conflict in Afghanistan. There is pessimism in Kabul over the political deadlock, there is very little economic activity (ironically in part because some investors are scared away by President Ghani’s anti-corruption agenda), and President Ghani’s outreach to Pakistan has been unpopular domestically.
Security
Jalali discussed Afghanistan’s poor security environment. The end of the Coalition combat mission meant an end to international air and intelligence support in this typical fighting season. The Taliban may be willing to negotiate, but want to improve their bargaining power through gains on the ground.
The ANSF struggle with a low force to space ratio in its attempt to defend vast territories. The troops are spread thinly to maintain a presence in all parts of the country occupying small, remote, vulnerable outposts. The Taliban attack these outposts, causing heavy casualties, and then disperse. Suicide attacks in cities have also increased, demonstrating to citizens that the government is incapable of providing security.
The ANSF lack intelligence capacity. In the past, they were able to foil 70% of planned attacks, but now they foil a mere 30%. Instead of manning remote, strategically insignificant posts, the ANSF should focus on intelligence-gathering to take the fight to the Taliban through ambushes.
Politics
Smith discussed Afghanistan’s political impasse. The government is in a state of institutionalized crisis, as disagreements continue between the supporters of President Ghani and Chief Executive (CEO) Abdullah. The agreement between the two parties gives both sides an equitable share of power, but does not contain mechanisms for dispute resolution if one side oversteps its authority. The result is disputes about how to resolve disputes.
Those who try to serve as mediators between the parties become distrusted by both sides. Ghani has tried to build a competent government but has not appointed anyone with previous ministerial experience. Abdullah is losing some supporters because he cannot provide patronage appointments to all his benefactors.
Meanwhile, an opposition is forming that includes former president Karzai and is hoping this government will collapse so that it can step into its shoes. The risk is that the Taliban will step in instead.
Economics
Byrd discussed Afghanistan’s economic woes. Afghanistan’s economy has traditionally been based on subsistence agriculture and herding. The Coalition’s military campaign brought investment, but this is drying up in the wake of the withdrawal, causing a decline in growth. Growth is not yet negative only because recent harvests have been good.
There is little business investment, capital flight, and high unemployment. Human capital indicators, such as literacy, are poor. There is a dire fiscal crisis, though revenue has improved somewhat in the first four months of this year. The Afghan private sector needs more confidence. Byrd argued that high tariffs on imports of cash crops like apples and almonds, combined with innovative export subsidies, could be beneficial.
Foreign policy and negotiations
Yousef spoke about Ghani’s attempt to reconcile with Pakistan. Ghani’s outreach to Pakistan made sense because he has no other options. The state has gotten weaker and the Taliban stronger. Pakistan has been reluctant to go after the Taliban’s safe havens militarily and has been concerned about Afghan-Indian ties. Ghani has been less warm towards India, hoping that Pakistan can bring the Taliban to the negotiating table.
So far, this has not happened. If negotiations do occur, they should focus on what is needed to achieve a ceasefire. Yousef argued they should not become mired in human rights issues, which can be addressed later.
RSS - Posts
