UNFINISHED BUSINESS IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ

We are told that we have executed two successful wars. In Afghanistan the leadership of the Taliband are still at large. The leader of al Qaeda is still free. The political task of creating a stable and democratic state in either country is proving much more difficult. In Afghanistan since January 2003 there have emerged some hopeful signs. Sections of President Hamid Karzai's government apparatus is becoming more functional. But the central government continues to be severely hampered in the absence of adequate funds, security structures, and infrastructure.

In April 2003 the United States Institute of Peace published a special report 105 which discusses the situation in Afghanistan. You can secure a copy by calling (202)457-1700.

I want to share with you some of the information they have found in their report. Much of it becomes suggestive for Iraq. Thereto, they have not been able to seize the leader Saddam Husien and many of his leadership. It is apparent that as in Afghanistan there appears to be little control of the country by any central authority. Who- ever the opposition group is in Iraq they appear able to launch sporadic attacks daily. In fact, the attacks appear to becoming large and more devastating.

One of the major points made in the special report is that of legitimizing the central government and managing center-periphery relations, especially in dealing with the warlords; providing credible security and rule of law extending beyond Kabul; economic reconstruction; and maintaining ethnic harmony and achieving nation integration.

It appears to your editor that this suggests a major concern about what is happening in Iraq. In one sense it offers little comfort in the United States ability to deal with this situation. They can look back to the end of World War II and the Marshall Plan in the impact it had in Europe. However, that is like comparing apples and coconuts. Different cultures, histories, and numerous other ethnic and cultural differences are crucial.

It is pointed out in the report that "warlordism" is deeply rooted in Afghanistan's cultural past. Historically the Afghan central government has been weak, with regionalist politics the norm. The manner in which the United States fought the Soviet Union by furnishing weapons and money to a variety of Afghan commanders rather than to a centralized political authority facilitated warlordism. Similarly U.S. military strategy between 9/11 and the establishment of the Karzai government emphasized support for those Afghan commanders capable of working with the United States in pursuing its military objective, thus contributing to the persistence of warlords.

It appears that we could make the same mistake in Iraq, unknowingly sowing the seeds for continued revolution and division within the country. It has not been the government of the United States that has been the moving force behind ethnic harmony or racial equality. These two issues have been brought to reality in our country because of the religious community in and its efforts across the years. The achievements were ratified by the government after the religious community had pressured, and visited the office in state capitals and in Washington. There were many issues of religious publications that promoted and daringly took prophetic stands for most of achievements that have been made in our land. Fortunately, some of the other social groups began to join with the church and synagogues to fight for brotherhood. Eventually we were successful. Unfortunately the politicians stood on the sidelines and watched the spectacle. Either not understanding what was occurring or disinterested until it appeared votes were involved.

Can we expect Washington to have the wisdom of nation building? What has been their track record in nation building? Unfortunately the military are not trained to be nation builders. Most of their training is focused on other concerns.

What concerns this editor is the fact that we as a nation are now involved in two situations that appear to be beyond our control and our ability. Yet, we a reluctant to ask the United Nations to come in and contribute to the situation. Yes, we made a request for their help, but under our control. Why? Can we maintain order and development better than others? Is our understanding of Islam and Middle Eastern cultures really adequate for the task at hand?

The report points out that the lack of international security forces or an effective national army beyond Kabul leaves the provinces outside of international and central control, with warlords filling the vacuum. Regional actors question the governments capacity to provide basic public goods and undermine its authority by controlling alternative resources through a variety of mechanisms, including illegal transit fees, smuggling, and drug dealing.

The report states that the ethnic dynamics, while potentially volatile, continue to be reasonably well balanced. U.S. military action affected the political balance and tilted power away from the Pashtuns, who find this difficult to accept. But the Pashtun community also suffers internal division based on region, ideology, and leadership personality. U.S. intervention in Iraq may mobilize Pashtun sentiment against American involvement in Afghanistan and increase attacks against U.S. troops.

Afghanistan's future is going to be determined by how much priority the country will receive in short and long run on the international communities agenda. So far, international assistance has tended to be long on promises, short on deliveries. This undercuts U.S. credibility, since it is seen as Karzai's strongest ally. It does appear that Iraq could well become a carbon copy of Afghanistan.

A PROPOSAL TO MAKE OUR COUNTRY AND THE WORLD MORE SECURE

In the July/August issue of the Friends Committee on National Legislation newsletter, there is a proposal for lasting peace and human security. I want to share that with you for thoughtful study and discussion. Elements of this approach would include

• actively contributing to the prevention and mitigation of violent conflict through international institutions such as the UN and the International Criminal Court, and supporting the development of early warning systems, preventive diplomacy, and capacities for UN peace operations that can respond to emerging conflicts before violence erupts.
  
  
• ensuring adequate security, humanitarian assistance, and generous reconstruction aid for Afghanistan and Iraq, and turning the political transition and reconstruction process in Iraq over to more legitimate international authorities soon;
  
  
• vigorously pursuing comprehensive negotiations with North Korea that address legitimate North Korean fears of a U.S. preventive strike and that lead toward the verifiable dismantling of the North Korean nuclear weapons program and eventual normalization of diplomatic relations and trade;
  
  
• strengthening international law by upholding treaties for the advancement of human rights, arms control and disarmament, environmental protection, good government and fair trade; and
  
  
• addressing the root causes of war by supporting generous development assistance, ensuring more equitable distribution of resources, eradicating HIV/AIDS and other diseases, and meeting basic human needs worldwide.

UNITED METHODISM AT RISK: a WAKE-UP CALL

The focus of United Methodism @ Risk:A Wake-Up Call is to alert the church of the organizations leading an ulta-conservative effort to control and reshape The United Methodist Church to fit their agenda.

The book is published by the Information Project for United Methodists, co-chaired by Bishop C. Dale White, widely known for leadership on peace issues, and New York attorney and well-known lay leader Beth Capen. Leon Howell is the author.

Bishop White said in announcing the books release: "All United Methodists need to read this book to be fully informed on the tactics, ideological bias and theological restrictions evidenced in the life and work of the conservative renewal groups. "The direction they would take our church demeans clergy and laity," he said.

"It is insulting to the professional integrity of the clergy to dictate to them the precise theological language they must use in the pulpit and Bible studies," Bishop white said. "And it is insulting to the laity to assume they cannot be trusted to engage in theological reflection and define their faith according to their own perceptions and conscience."

The book may be ordered from:
The Genesis III Group
P.O. Box 336
Deerfield, NH 03037
Toll-free phone: 888-829-2947
Fax: 603-463-5621
e-mail: genthree@genesisthree.com
The book is $$12.50(includes shipping/handling)

THE BETTER WAY: A Civilized Defense Strategy for the U.S. and the World.

In the June 2003 issue of the Fourth Freedom Forum newsletter, David Cortwright the President of the Forum has a perceptive and informative article. He begins by reminding us opf the new foreign policy focus of the Bush Administration since 9/11. He contends that the first-strike military doctrine is dangerous and costly. The commitment of more than one hundred thousand troops for the occupation of Iraq will pose ongoing risks to American forces. The economic costs of reconstructing Iraq, not to speak of the unfilled pledge to assist Afghanistan, will strain U.S. resources. U.S. military spending has jumped 34 percent in the last two years and will top $460 billion in FY 2004.

He continues that the administration's first-strike policy has aroused growing animosity toward the U.S. abroad. As President Jimmy Carter observed, "Increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory." Antipathy toward U.S. policy is especially acute among traditional American allies in Europe and in the Arab world. The feelings of outrage and humiliation our policies have engendered increase the risk of terrorist attacks. The Bush doctrine makes the U.S. less, not more secure.

There is a better way, one that takes seriously the terrorism and proliferation threat, but that provides a safer, less costly, and ultimately more successful strategy for countering these dangers. through cooperation with other countries, multilateral disarmament, the use of international institutions, carrots and sticks diplomacy, and support for the rule of law, the United States can protect itself against errorism and weapons of mass destruction and realize a safer, more secure future.

Viable diplomatic options are available, and have proven effective in recent efforts to prevent terrorism and counter weapons proliferation. In the wake of 9/11, the United States has worked with more than 150 governments through the UN Counter Terrorism Committee to coordinate criminal investigations and police actions, and to deny financing and a safe haven for al Qaeda and other terrorist networks. Considerable success has been achieved through these efforts in strengthening international restrictions on terrorists and those who support them. Dozens of senior al Qaeda operatives have been captured in Afghanistan, Pakistan and several European and Asian countries. The financial resources available to al Qaeda have been reduced. The operations of the terrorist net work have been disrupted by these efforts.

Through the use of UN sanctions and U.S. diplomatic initiatives, Libya and Sudan reduced their support for international terrorism and provided assistance to the U.S.-led campaign against al Qaeda. Libyan terrorists agents destroyed American and French airliners in 1988 and 1989. In 1999, after seven years of targeted UN sanctions, Libya turned over terrorist suspects to an international tribunal. In Sudan UN sanctions and U.S. diplomatic pressure prompted the regime to expel Osma Bin Laden in 1996 and to cooperate with American counterterrorism efforts before and especially after, September 2001.

Much of the progress toward denuclearization in recent decades has been achieved through diplomatic means. The nuclear reductions of the U.S. and Russia, the decision by Ukraine and Kazakhstan to give up the nuclear
weapons on their soil, South Africa's disavowal of the bomb, the nuclear restraint agreement of Argentina and Brazil-these and other disarmament successes came not from externally imposed military pressure but from negotiated agreements and incentive- based bargaining. Inducements and mutual conciliatory gestures were more important than coercive pressures in bringing about these decisions to denuclearize.

World Bank studies indicate that violent conflict is most often associated with joblessness and a lack of economic opportunity. Development aid, debt relief and other forms of economic assistance can create jobs and increase opportunity and thus reduce the likelihood of such conflict. Economic aid and trade incentives can also be important means of encouraging recipient nations to resolve conflict and to uphold norms of democracy, tolerance, openness, and respect for human rights.

An alternative global security strategy emphasizes cooperation over unilateralism, prevention over preemption, and peaceful diplomatic means over military force as the primary tools of influencing policy. It is a strategy based on the force of law rather than the law of force, one that relies on the power of trade rather
than military might and that employs peaceful diplomatic means for achieving a more just and secure future.(Fourth Freedom Forum, 803 N. Main St. Goshen, IN 46528-2632)

__________________________________________________