Although Dick Cheney would probably sacrifice himself on the altar of the DNC in order to keep this from happening - there is some movement on Syrian-Israeli peace (that is if the US manages to stay out of it)
You can read about the talks here.
Friday, April 25, 2008
The CIA or the Office of Strategic Plans? "CIA to describe North Korea-Syria Nuclear Ties"
I'm attending a conference today and a colleague joked about how the CIA knew that it was in fact North Koreans visiting the nuclear sites in Syria: "Easy - they were wearing Hard Rock Cafe Pyongyang t-shirts"
The consensus among those I know seems to be that this is a last-ditch attempt by administration hawks to ensure that talks with North Korea do not take place (and that Israeli-Syrian peace talks are also derailed)
CIA to describe North Korea-Syria nuclear ties
Officials will tell Congress members this week that North Korea was helping Syria build a reactor last year when it was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike, a U.S. official says.
By Paul Richter and Greg Miller
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
April 23, 2008
WASHINGTON — CIA officials will tell Congress on Thursday that North Korea had been helping Syria build a plutonium-based nuclear reactor, a U.S. official said, a disclosure that could touch off new resistance to the administration's plan to ease sanctions on Pyongyang.
The CIA officials will tell lawmakers that they believe the reactor would have been capable of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons but was destroyed before it could do so, the U.S. official said, apparently referring to a suspicious installation in Syria that was bombed last year by Israeli warplanes.
The CIA officials also will say that though U.S. officials have had concerns for years about ties between North Korea and Syria, it was not until last year that new intelligence convinced them that the suspicious facility under construction in a remote area of Syria was a nuclear reactor, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing plans for the briefing.
The administration is planning to ease sanctions on North Korea as part of talks aimed at removing Pyongyang's nuclear weapons. The six nations involved in the talks, which also include China, Russia, South Korea and Japan, have been negotiating since 2003.
You can read the rest here.
The consensus among those I know seems to be that this is a last-ditch attempt by administration hawks to ensure that talks with North Korea do not take place (and that Israeli-Syrian peace talks are also derailed)
CIA to describe North Korea-Syria nuclear ties
Officials will tell Congress members this week that North Korea was helping Syria build a reactor last year when it was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike, a U.S. official says.
By Paul Richter and Greg Miller
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
April 23, 2008
WASHINGTON — CIA officials will tell Congress on Thursday that North Korea had been helping Syria build a plutonium-based nuclear reactor, a U.S. official said, a disclosure that could touch off new resistance to the administration's plan to ease sanctions on Pyongyang.
The CIA officials will tell lawmakers that they believe the reactor would have been capable of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons but was destroyed before it could do so, the U.S. official said, apparently referring to a suspicious installation in Syria that was bombed last year by Israeli warplanes.
The CIA officials also will say that though U.S. officials have had concerns for years about ties between North Korea and Syria, it was not until last year that new intelligence convinced them that the suspicious facility under construction in a remote area of Syria was a nuclear reactor, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing plans for the briefing.
The administration is planning to ease sanctions on North Korea as part of talks aimed at removing Pyongyang's nuclear weapons. The six nations involved in the talks, which also include China, Russia, South Korea and Japan, have been negotiating since 2003.
You can read the rest here.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Hillary: The Newest Neocon
I know that Hillary has to court the Israeli vote - but this is downright irresponsible. I wish I could sit her down and tell her that just because she has female reproductive organs doesn't mean she needs to mold herself into a 21st Century Attila the Hun . . . .
Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel attacked
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton threatened to "obliterate" Iran if it launches a nuclear attack on Israel, in an interview broadcast Tuesday.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton told ABC News, asked what she would do as president were Iran to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
The tough talk came just prior to Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, a key milestone in the marathon Democratic nominations race pitting Clinton against her rival Senator Barack Obama.
Clinton must win the Pennsylvania primary, but she needs to do more than simply scrape past Obama to rescue her trailing White House bid, pundits say.
Obama's camp Monday accused Clinton of trying to scare voters, as she rocked their White House race with a dark campaign ad featuring images of Al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden.
The ad uses pictures of Pearl Harbor, bin Laden and the devastating 2005 hurricane that swamped New Orleans, mirroring the "3:00 am phone call" spot credited with helping Clinton to win in Texas and Ohio last month.
"You need to be ready for anything -- especially now, with two wars, oil prices skyrocketing and an economy in crisis," the male narrator intones. "Who do you think has what it takes?"
Both Democrats have vowed to defend Israel against any Iranian attack, but they differ on how to engage the Islamic republic over its nuclear ambitions.
Both call for diplomacy, but Obama has gone further, renewing a promise of "direct talks" at a leaders' level with Tehran and others the United States regards as foes, at a candidate debate here last week.
Iran should be presented with "carrots and sticks," the Illinois senator said, while stressing "they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons."
At the debate, he said: "An (Iranian) attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one whose security we consider paramount."
"That would be an act of aggression that I would consider unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action."
Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran if Israel attacked
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton threatened to "obliterate" Iran if it launches a nuclear attack on Israel, in an interview broadcast Tuesday.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton told ABC News, asked what she would do as president were Iran to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
The tough talk came just prior to Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, a key milestone in the marathon Democratic nominations race pitting Clinton against her rival Senator Barack Obama.
Clinton must win the Pennsylvania primary, but she needs to do more than simply scrape past Obama to rescue her trailing White House bid, pundits say.
Obama's camp Monday accused Clinton of trying to scare voters, as she rocked their White House race with a dark campaign ad featuring images of Al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden.
The ad uses pictures of Pearl Harbor, bin Laden and the devastating 2005 hurricane that swamped New Orleans, mirroring the "3:00 am phone call" spot credited with helping Clinton to win in Texas and Ohio last month.
"You need to be ready for anything -- especially now, with two wars, oil prices skyrocketing and an economy in crisis," the male narrator intones. "Who do you think has what it takes?"
Both Democrats have vowed to defend Israel against any Iranian attack, but they differ on how to engage the Islamic republic over its nuclear ambitions.
Both call for diplomacy, but Obama has gone further, renewing a promise of "direct talks" at a leaders' level with Tehran and others the United States regards as foes, at a candidate debate here last week.
Iran should be presented with "carrots and sticks," the Illinois senator said, while stressing "they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons."
At the debate, he said: "An (Iranian) attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one whose security we consider paramount."
"That would be an act of aggression that I would consider unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action."
Monday, April 21, 2008
Carter: Hamas will accept Israel
BBC NEWS
Carter: Hamas will accept Israel
Jimmy Carter describes his talks with Hamas
Former US President Jimmy Carter has said that Hamas is prepared to accept the right of Israel to "live as a neighbour next door in peace".
After meeting Hamas leaders last week in Syria, he said it was a problem that the US and Israel would not meet them.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has challenged Hamas to prove its goodwill by renouncing violence.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has refused to see Mr Carter, who was ending his regional visit in Jerusalem.
Meanwhile, the Israeli army has launched a formal investigation into the death of a Reuters cameraman killed in the Gaza Strip last week.
Two Palestinians died in Israeli air strikes in the territory on Monday: one person in the southern city of Rafah and a Hamas militant at Beit Hanoun, a border town from where rockets are often fired at Israel.
'Regressed'
In a speech in Jerusalem, Mr Carter said Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking had "regressed" since the US hosted Middle East talks in November at Annapolis.
Hamas indicated... that if Israel is willing to have a mutual ceasefire... they will accept it
Jimmy Carter
He defended his talks in Damascus with exiled Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal.
"The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with someone who must be involved," he told Israel's Council on Foreign Relations.
Hamas had reiterated its position that it could accept an Israeli state within its pre-1967 borders and live in peace with Israel, he said.
"Hamas indicated... that if Israel is willing to have a mutual ceasefire and a renunciation of violence in Gaza and in the West Bank, they will accept it, and as a first step they would even accept just limiting that to Gaza," he said, speaking to the BBC's Newsnight programme.
Israel, the US and the European Union regard Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, as a terrorist organisation.
Hamas is officially dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.
Call for proof
Mr Carter also said the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, captured by Hamas and other militant groups during a raid into Israel two years ago, was being held up by the lack of direct communication between Israel and Hamas.
Mr Carter said the difficulty was in agreeing the identity of the Palestinian prisoners to be released in return.
He said Egyptian officials had told him that Israel had agreed to release 1,000 prisoners but accepted only 71 names on a list of hundreds of prisoners submitted by Hamas.
Speaking in Manama on a tour of the Middle East, Ms Rice said Hamas should show their willingness to make peace by releasing Corp Shalit and halting rocket attacks on Israel.
She also called on the group to recognise the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority, whom they ousted from Gaza last summer.
Shell investigation
Israel has said it will investigate the death of Palestinian Reuters cameraman Fadel Shana, who died with several other civilians in Gaza last Wednesday.
New York-based Human Rights Watch says it has evidence an Israeli tank team fired either recklessly or deliberately at Mr Shana.
The Israeli army denies deliberately targeting civilians.
Israeli Human rights group B'tselem has reported that Mr Shana was killed by a flechette shell, which rains down thousands of small metal darts.
The group called for use of the shell to cease immediately and for a criminal investigation of the event.
Carter: Hamas will accept Israel
Jimmy Carter describes his talks with Hamas
Former US President Jimmy Carter has said that Hamas is prepared to accept the right of Israel to "live as a neighbour next door in peace".
After meeting Hamas leaders last week in Syria, he said it was a problem that the US and Israel would not meet them.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has challenged Hamas to prove its goodwill by renouncing violence.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has refused to see Mr Carter, who was ending his regional visit in Jerusalem.
Meanwhile, the Israeli army has launched a formal investigation into the death of a Reuters cameraman killed in the Gaza Strip last week.
Two Palestinians died in Israeli air strikes in the territory on Monday: one person in the southern city of Rafah and a Hamas militant at Beit Hanoun, a border town from where rockets are often fired at Israel.
'Regressed'
In a speech in Jerusalem, Mr Carter said Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking had "regressed" since the US hosted Middle East talks in November at Annapolis.
Hamas indicated... that if Israel is willing to have a mutual ceasefire... they will accept it
Jimmy Carter
He defended his talks in Damascus with exiled Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal.
"The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with someone who must be involved," he told Israel's Council on Foreign Relations.
Hamas had reiterated its position that it could accept an Israeli state within its pre-1967 borders and live in peace with Israel, he said.
"Hamas indicated... that if Israel is willing to have a mutual ceasefire and a renunciation of violence in Gaza and in the West Bank, they will accept it, and as a first step they would even accept just limiting that to Gaza," he said, speaking to the BBC's Newsnight programme.
Israel, the US and the European Union regard Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, as a terrorist organisation.
Hamas is officially dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.
Call for proof
Mr Carter also said the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, captured by Hamas and other militant groups during a raid into Israel two years ago, was being held up by the lack of direct communication between Israel and Hamas.
Mr Carter said the difficulty was in agreeing the identity of the Palestinian prisoners to be released in return.
He said Egyptian officials had told him that Israel had agreed to release 1,000 prisoners but accepted only 71 names on a list of hundreds of prisoners submitted by Hamas.
Speaking in Manama on a tour of the Middle East, Ms Rice said Hamas should show their willingness to make peace by releasing Corp Shalit and halting rocket attacks on Israel.
She also called on the group to recognise the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority, whom they ousted from Gaza last summer.
Shell investigation
Israel has said it will investigate the death of Palestinian Reuters cameraman Fadel Shana, who died with several other civilians in Gaza last Wednesday.
New York-based Human Rights Watch says it has evidence an Israeli tank team fired either recklessly or deliberately at Mr Shana.
The Israeli army denies deliberately targeting civilians.
Israeli Human rights group B'tselem has reported that Mr Shana was killed by a flechette shell, which rains down thousands of small metal darts.
The group called for use of the shell to cease immediately and for a criminal investigation of the event.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
It's Better than Asking Ahmed Chalabi!
My day job is working with Professor Shibley Telhami at the University of Maryland, and we just received the most recent survey data from a survey he designs and contracts to Zogby International. The poll is conducted in the Middle East (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, KSA, and the UAE) with a sample size of around 4,000 and deals with a range of issues, from religion and politics to views of the US. The results aren't surprising - but sometimes the obvious needs to be documented. And as Professor Telhami said (when asked by some guy from WINEP - "why do you conduct these polls?"), "It's better than asking Ahmed Chalabi!" You can find the results of the poll here.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Add it to the list: Another expert warning about an invasion of Iraq in 1999
The invasion and ensuing civil war in Iraq has been a windfall for journalists - the Bush war machine goes back so far it has provided fodder for an entire generation of aspiring Pulitzer prize winners. Below is just one more foreboding commentary from a regional government minister (this time, the Oil Minister in Kuwait). It came up on a google search I was doing for 'social welfare systems in the Middle East' - the fact that it barely mentions the terms 'social,' 'welfare' or 'Middle East' (excepting of course, talk of invading Iraq) is indicative of the absence of serious social provisions in all but the GCC states - and even then only for the 10% of the population that has citizenship. But, back to the point. This is an interview from the Middle East Forum - I only reproduce the really great parts here, but you can find the entire text here.
MEQ: Do you see an end to Saddam's pattern of breaking his word, then at the last minute backing down?
Al-Sabah: Iraq has been jerking around the Security Council, the United States, and the whole coalition. We saw this back in February, when it at the last moment backed down from a confrontation and signed an agreement with Secretary-General Kofi Annan, thus narrowly avoiding war. The Clinton administration indicates that it has no more patience with such behavior; if that's so, a serious confrontation appears likely.
MEQ: You have confidence in this administration?
Al-Sabah: Look, I have full confidence in it, as we had in the previous administrations. But that's not even the main issue now. It's not what the administration wishes; it is rather the whole United States of America, plus the coalition, our partners, and the Security Council.
We are on the right course. Iraq did back down in February and again this month. Saddam vowed UNSCOM would never return to Iraq and he had to go back on this; but they're back and they're in business.
MEQ: What's to stop this from happening all over again?
Al-Sabah: It will be a different ball game next time around. Just watch.
MEQ: You have said that a weak Saddam Husayn is less threatening to Kuwait than some other regime.1 Please explain what you mean.
Al-Sabah: We don't see a viable alternative to Saddam Husayn emerging, one that would fulfill our desires to have a democratic and peace-loving Iraq for a neighbor. Given this pessimism, Saddam Husayn is perhaps less threatening than the alternative, which I see mainly as a civil war that would consume Iraq. Once Saddam falls, I expect a major civil war would erupt in Iraq. The Kurds in the north, Shi‘a in the south, and anti-Saddam Sunnis in the middle of Iraq will be busy settling scores. I also fear that a massive civil war would go beyond the borders of Iraq and create chaos in the region, where all the neighboring countries would get involved in it, as they did in Lebanon. Civil war in Iraq would make civil war in Lebanon look like a stroll in the park. We are extremely concerned this civil war could also spill over into Kuwait.
MEQ: Would it be fair to say that the security of Kuwait ultimately depends on American public opinion?
Al-Sabah: It remains very important.
MEQ: Do you worry about a softening in American public opinion?
Al-Sabah: Not really. I was in Houston the other night having dinner with President Bush, Governor Bush, and others. The conversation turned to some people talking about the sufferings of the Iraqi people. I said fine, we all sympathize with the sufferings of the Iraqi people, but doesn't anyone really sympathize with the sufferings of the American people? I look at the sufferings of those tens of thousands of soldiers who have to be apart from their families during the holiday season. When you see those young men and women leaving their loved ones behind, crying and kissing, hugging each other, boarding military planes, going to fight a war—that's more suffering than anyone else experiences. Thanksgiving is coming up, then Christmas and New Year's, and they'll spend it in the front-lines, not knowing whether they'll be coming back or not. This is the suffering we should be talking about.
MEQ: Do you see an end to Saddam's pattern of breaking his word, then at the last minute backing down?
Al-Sabah: Iraq has been jerking around the Security Council, the United States, and the whole coalition. We saw this back in February, when it at the last moment backed down from a confrontation and signed an agreement with Secretary-General Kofi Annan, thus narrowly avoiding war. The Clinton administration indicates that it has no more patience with such behavior; if that's so, a serious confrontation appears likely.
MEQ: You have confidence in this administration?
Al-Sabah: Look, I have full confidence in it, as we had in the previous administrations. But that's not even the main issue now. It's not what the administration wishes; it is rather the whole United States of America, plus the coalition, our partners, and the Security Council.
We are on the right course. Iraq did back down in February and again this month. Saddam vowed UNSCOM would never return to Iraq and he had to go back on this; but they're back and they're in business.
MEQ: What's to stop this from happening all over again?
Al-Sabah: It will be a different ball game next time around. Just watch.
MEQ: You have said that a weak Saddam Husayn is less threatening to Kuwait than some other regime.1 Please explain what you mean.
Al-Sabah: We don't see a viable alternative to Saddam Husayn emerging, one that would fulfill our desires to have a democratic and peace-loving Iraq for a neighbor. Given this pessimism, Saddam Husayn is perhaps less threatening than the alternative, which I see mainly as a civil war that would consume Iraq. Once Saddam falls, I expect a major civil war would erupt in Iraq. The Kurds in the north, Shi‘a in the south, and anti-Saddam Sunnis in the middle of Iraq will be busy settling scores. I also fear that a massive civil war would go beyond the borders of Iraq and create chaos in the region, where all the neighboring countries would get involved in it, as they did in Lebanon. Civil war in Iraq would make civil war in Lebanon look like a stroll in the park. We are extremely concerned this civil war could also spill over into Kuwait.
MEQ: Would it be fair to say that the security of Kuwait ultimately depends on American public opinion?
Al-Sabah: It remains very important.
MEQ: Do you worry about a softening in American public opinion?
Al-Sabah: Not really. I was in Houston the other night having dinner with President Bush, Governor Bush, and others. The conversation turned to some people talking about the sufferings of the Iraqi people. I said fine, we all sympathize with the sufferings of the Iraqi people, but doesn't anyone really sympathize with the sufferings of the American people? I look at the sufferings of those tens of thousands of soldiers who have to be apart from their families during the holiday season. When you see those young men and women leaving their loved ones behind, crying and kissing, hugging each other, boarding military planes, going to fight a war—that's more suffering than anyone else experiences. Thanksgiving is coming up, then Christmas and New Year's, and they'll spend it in the front-lines, not knowing whether they'll be coming back or not. This is the suffering we should be talking about.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
New UN Report Released on Hariri Assassination
The new report (you can find the text here along with the BBC analysis) seems to suggest that the assassination was "criminally" rather than "politically" motivated - although that doesn't necessarily rule out Syrian involvement, it does suggest a much more nuanced and complex picture than the earlier UN reports. Syria is reported to provide "generally satisfactory cooperation" to the investigative authorities.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
40% of Afghan aid returns to donor countries, says report
The Guardian has a great article on the reconstruction in Afghanistan. I'm knee-deep in a paper right now on free-market reforms and contracting, so it caught my eye on the Angry Arab's blog. I reproduce the article in its entirety below:
Richard Norton-Taylor
March 25 2008.
Afghanistan is being deprived of $10bn (£5bn) of promised aid, and 40% of the money that has been delivered was spent on corporate profits and consultancy fees, according to a hard-hitting report by aid agencies released today.
The failure of western donors to keep their promises, compounded by corruption and inefficiency, is undermining the prospects for peace in Afghanistan, it warns.
Civil aid programmes are a fraction of what is spent by America, Britain and other countries on military operations there. Much of the money earmarked for aid is diverted to political or military purposes.
The report by Acbar, an alliance of international aid agencies working in the country, including Oxfam, Christian Aid, Islamic Relief and Save the Children, says the international community has pledged $25bn to Afghanistan since 2001 but only $15bn has been delivered.
The US is the biggest donor to Afghanistan but is also responsible for one of the biggest shortfalls. The US delivered only half of the $10.4bn it committed between 2002 and 2008, according to the Afghan government, today's report says.
Over the same period the European commission and Germany distributed less than two-thirds of their respective $1.7bn and $1.2bn commitments while the World Bank distributed just over half of the $1.6bn it committed. Britain pledged $1.45bn and distributed almost all, $1.3bn.
The report estimated that 40% of the aid money spent in Afghanistan has found its way back to rich donor countries such as the US through corporate profits, consultants' salaries and other costs, significantly inflating the cost of projects.
For example, a road between the centre of Kabul and the international airport cost over $2.3m per kilometre in US aid money, at least four times the average cost of building a road in Afghanistan, today's report says.
Afghanistan's biggest donor, USAid, allocates nearly half its funds to five big contractors. The US government has awarded major contracts, some worth hundreds of millions of dollars, to KBR, the Louis Berger group, Chemonics International, Bearing Point, and Dyncorp International, according to a study by the US-based Centre for Public Integrity quoted in today's report.
Most full-time expatriate consultants working for private companies in Afghanistan cost between $250,000 and $500,000 a year, including salary, allowances and associated costs, the report adds.
Some 90% of all public spending in Afghanistan comes from international aid. The huge shortfall hinders efforts to rebuild infrastructure damaged by over two decades of war, and the delivery of essential services such as education and health, the report says.
Matt Waldman, Oxfam's Afghanistan policy adviser and the report's author, said last night: "The reconstruction of Afghanistan requires a sustained and substantial commitment of aid - but donors have failed to meet their aid pledges to Afghanistan. Too much aid from rich countries is wasted, ineffective or uncoordinated.
"Spending on tackling poverty is a fraction of what is spent on military operations. While the US military is currently spending $100m a day in Afghanistan, aid spent by all donors since 2001 is on average less than a tenth of that - just $7m a day.
"Given the slow pace of progress in Afghanistan, and the links between poverty and conflict, the international community must urgently get its act together".
The report says some degree of donor under-spending could be expected because of the lack of government capacity, large-scale corruption, and difficult security conditions. But the size of the shortfall highlights the need for donors making better efforts to face up to the problem.
The report also shows that a disproportionate amount of aid follows the conflict and is being used for political and military objectives rather than reducing poverty.
"This is a short-sighted policy," said Waldman. "There must be strong support for development in the south but if other provinces are neglected then insecurity could spread."
The report says the volume of aid, particularly to rural areas, should be increased, aid donors should be more open about what they want to provide and cooperate better with the Afghan government.
There should be better ways to measure the impact, efficiency, and relevance of aid money, and an independent commission to monitor the appropriateness and effectiveness of donors' programmes, should be set up, it says.
Richard Norton-Taylor
March 25 2008.
Afghanistan is being deprived of $10bn (£5bn) of promised aid, and 40% of the money that has been delivered was spent on corporate profits and consultancy fees, according to a hard-hitting report by aid agencies released today.
The failure of western donors to keep their promises, compounded by corruption and inefficiency, is undermining the prospects for peace in Afghanistan, it warns.
Civil aid programmes are a fraction of what is spent by America, Britain and other countries on military operations there. Much of the money earmarked for aid is diverted to political or military purposes.
The report by Acbar, an alliance of international aid agencies working in the country, including Oxfam, Christian Aid, Islamic Relief and Save the Children, says the international community has pledged $25bn to Afghanistan since 2001 but only $15bn has been delivered.
The US is the biggest donor to Afghanistan but is also responsible for one of the biggest shortfalls. The US delivered only half of the $10.4bn it committed between 2002 and 2008, according to the Afghan government, today's report says.
Over the same period the European commission and Germany distributed less than two-thirds of their respective $1.7bn and $1.2bn commitments while the World Bank distributed just over half of the $1.6bn it committed. Britain pledged $1.45bn and distributed almost all, $1.3bn.
The report estimated that 40% of the aid money spent in Afghanistan has found its way back to rich donor countries such as the US through corporate profits, consultants' salaries and other costs, significantly inflating the cost of projects.
For example, a road between the centre of Kabul and the international airport cost over $2.3m per kilometre in US aid money, at least four times the average cost of building a road in Afghanistan, today's report says.
Afghanistan's biggest donor, USAid, allocates nearly half its funds to five big contractors. The US government has awarded major contracts, some worth hundreds of millions of dollars, to KBR, the Louis Berger group, Chemonics International, Bearing Point, and Dyncorp International, according to a study by the US-based Centre for Public Integrity quoted in today's report.
Most full-time expatriate consultants working for private companies in Afghanistan cost between $250,000 and $500,000 a year, including salary, allowances and associated costs, the report adds.
Some 90% of all public spending in Afghanistan comes from international aid. The huge shortfall hinders efforts to rebuild infrastructure damaged by over two decades of war, and the delivery of essential services such as education and health, the report says.
Matt Waldman, Oxfam's Afghanistan policy adviser and the report's author, said last night: "The reconstruction of Afghanistan requires a sustained and substantial commitment of aid - but donors have failed to meet their aid pledges to Afghanistan. Too much aid from rich countries is wasted, ineffective or uncoordinated.
"Spending on tackling poverty is a fraction of what is spent on military operations. While the US military is currently spending $100m a day in Afghanistan, aid spent by all donors since 2001 is on average less than a tenth of that - just $7m a day.
"Given the slow pace of progress in Afghanistan, and the links between poverty and conflict, the international community must urgently get its act together".
The report says some degree of donor under-spending could be expected because of the lack of government capacity, large-scale corruption, and difficult security conditions. But the size of the shortfall highlights the need for donors making better efforts to face up to the problem.
The report also shows that a disproportionate amount of aid follows the conflict and is being used for political and military objectives rather than reducing poverty.
"This is a short-sighted policy," said Waldman. "There must be strong support for development in the south but if other provinces are neglected then insecurity could spread."
The report says the volume of aid, particularly to rural areas, should be increased, aid donors should be more open about what they want to provide and cooperate better with the Afghan government.
There should be better ways to measure the impact, efficiency, and relevance of aid money, and an independent commission to monitor the appropriateness and effectiveness of donors' programmes, should be set up, it says.
The Red Menace: It's Communism . . . . for the banks!
A great article in Scotland's Sunday Herald about the recent collapse of large finance houses. Below are some excerpts:
"The irony, though, is that this time it isn't the working classes who are demanding that the state should take over, but the banks. The capitalists are throwing themselves on the mercy of government, demanding subsidies and protection from the capitalist market - it's socialism for the banks. Hedge fund managers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your bonuses.
"Instead of just propping up bankrupt banks, the governments should be democratising them - mobilising their assets to stimulate the productive economy, repairing infrastructure, researching and developing new markets, and refitting western economies to combat climate change. It needs a kind of green New Deal - an update on Roosevelt's imaginative policies of the 1930s fought tooth and nail by the banks.
"They want unlimited access to public money to save themselves from the consequences of their own actions; welfare for the wealthy. This is above all a political, not an economic problem. There needs to be a political mobilisation of public opinion to force the banks and the government to bring the people into the equation. Unfortunately, the party that used to perform this function, Labour, has largely been bought out by the banks. They have privatised the government, even as they have socialised the financial markets.
"The irony, though, is that this time it isn't the working classes who are demanding that the state should take over, but the banks. The capitalists are throwing themselves on the mercy of government, demanding subsidies and protection from the capitalist market - it's socialism for the banks. Hedge fund managers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your bonuses.
"Instead of just propping up bankrupt banks, the governments should be democratising them - mobilising their assets to stimulate the productive economy, repairing infrastructure, researching and developing new markets, and refitting western economies to combat climate change. It needs a kind of green New Deal - an update on Roosevelt's imaginative policies of the 1930s fought tooth and nail by the banks.
"They want unlimited access to public money to save themselves from the consequences of their own actions; welfare for the wealthy. This is above all a political, not an economic problem. There needs to be a political mobilisation of public opinion to force the banks and the government to bring the people into the equation. Unfortunately, the party that used to perform this function, Labour, has largely been bought out by the banks. They have privatised the government, even as they have socialised the financial markets.
Monday, March 17, 2008
The US Origins of Palestinian Violence
"After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, David Rose reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever." Vanity Fair has the whole story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
