Should (Could) America and Pakistan’s Bond Be Broken?

Within days of the American raid deep inside Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, Pakistani officials travelled to Beijing and asked their “Chinese brothers” to operate a strategic port on the Arabian Sea. They also said the two countries were planning oil pipelines, railroads and even military bases in Pakistan for the Chinese Navy.

The Pakistani officials had already advised their neighbors in Afghanistan — where Americans have committed billions of dollars and lost more than 1,500 lives since 2001 — that Afghanistan would be better off placing long-term bets on an ascendant China, rather than a declining United States.

With the tortured marriage clearly in trouble, Islamabad has sent signals that it is ready to start seeing other people. Can Washington afford to do the same? And just how far could Pakistan get by playing the field?

With Bin Laden dead and the White House determined to get the bulk of American troops out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible, some in Washington make the case that the ties that bind the United States to Pakistan are no longer so strong, and that the allegiances that have entangled them over the past decade could be rearranged.

There are new dynamics now at play, noticed by analysts who liken this era to the years immediately after the cold war. For decades, fears of Soviet expansion had brought the United States and Pakistan into a tight embrace, but those ties weakened and ultimately broke once that threat had passed. Similarly, an American withdrawal from Afghanistan could put greater distance between the two nations and allow ties between Washington and New Delhi to grow.

“As we begin to rely on Pakistan less to get supplies into Afghanistan, America’s axis with India will continue to strengthen,” said Bruce O. Riedel, a former C.I.A. official now at the Brookings Institution. If this happened, he said, it would only be natural for Islamabad to try to grow even closer to China and Saudi Arabia, two longtime allies and trading partners.

But even then, there would be limits on how much America might suffer. Some experts say that a network of new regional relationships with Pakistan actually might help America pursue its deepest interests in the region.

Don’t expect an open break tomorrow, of course. For the moment, the United States and Pakistan remain bound to each other. As long as war rages in Afghanistan, the United States will rely on routes in Pakistan to ferry in military supplies, and to keep pressure on militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas. And the Pakistani government still needs the billions that come each year from Washington to, among other things, keep pace in its arms race with India.

Once the war in Afghanistan winds down, though, the relationship could change. Some analysts foresee a new Great Game for dominance in the region, with stakes like billions of dollars in mineral wealth in Afghanistan, access to vital shipping lanes, and a need to monitor the longstanding tensions between India and Pakistan.

Some experts say that a bit of breathing room in the American-Pakistani relationship — managed responsibly — might be just the right therapy for the partnership. In the 10 years since Sept. 11, 2001, both the Bush and Obama administrations have made dozens of official visits to Islamabad to implore, lecture or demand that Pakistan sever ties to militant groups, even attaching strings (without ever really pulling them) to billions of dollars in annual aid. Pakistan’s reaction seems to have been little more than resentment of its dependency on Washington, and a determination to pursue an independent course, whether by hiding some of its intelligence agency’s activities or by openly hinting at taking another partner, like China.

One question, however, is whether China sees such a partnership quite the same way.

View the original article here

Should (Could) America and Pakistan’s Bond Be Broken?

在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。

Within days of the American raid deep inside Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden, Pakistani officials travelled to Beijing and asked their “Chinese brothers” to operate a strategic port on the Arabian Sea. They also said the two countries were planning oil pipelines, railroads and even military bases in Pakistan for the Chinese Navy.

The Pakistani officials had already advised their neighbors in Afghanistan — where Americans have committed billions of dollars and lost more than 1,500 lives since 2001 — that Afghanistan would be better off placing long-term bets on an ascendant China, rather than a declining United States.

With the tortured marriage clearly in trouble, Islamabad has sent signals that it is ready to start seeing other people. Can Washington afford to do the same? And just how far could Pakistan get by playing the field?

With Bin Laden dead and the White House determined to get the bulk of American troops out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible, some in Washington make the case that the ties that bind the United States to Pakistan are no longer so strong, and that the allegiances that have entangled them over the past decade could be rearranged.

There are new dynamics now at play, noticed by analysts who liken this era to the years immediately after the cold war. For decades, fears of Soviet expansion had brought the United States and Pakistan into a tight embrace, but those ties weakened and ultimately broke once that threat had passed. Similarly, an American withdrawal from Afghanistan could put greater distance between the two nations and allow ties between Washington and New Delhi to grow.

“As we begin to rely on Pakistan less to get supplies into Afghanistan, America’s axis with India will continue to strengthen,” said Bruce O. Riedel, a former C.I.A. official now at the Brookings Institution. If this happened, he said, it would only be natural for Islamabad to try to grow even closer to China and Saudi Arabia, two longtime allies and trading partners.

But even then, there would be limits on how much America might suffer. Some experts say that a network of new regional relationships with Pakistan actually might help America pursue its deepest interests in the region.

Don’t expect an open break tomorrow, of course. For the moment, the United States and Pakistan remain bound to each other. As long as war rages in Afghanistan, the United States will rely on routes in Pakistan to ferry in military supplies, and to keep pressure on militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas. And the Pakistani government still needs the billions that come each year from Washington to, among other things, keep pace in its arms race with India.

Once the war in Afghanistan winds down, though, the relationship could change. Some analysts foresee a new Great Game for dominance in the region, with stakes like billions of dollars in mineral wealth in Afghanistan, access to vital shipping lanes, and a need to monitor the longstanding tensions between India and Pakistan.

Some experts say that a bit of breathing room in the American-Pakistani relationship — managed responsibly — might be just the right therapy for the partnership. In the 10 years since Sept. 11, 2001, both the Bush and Obama administrations have made dozens of official visits to Islamabad to implore, lecture or demand that Pakistan sever ties to militant groups, even attaching strings (without ever really pulling them) to billions of dollars in annual aid. Pakistan’s reaction seems to have been little more than resentment of its dependency on Washington, and a determination to pursue an independent course, whether by hiding some of its intelligence agency’s activities or by openly hinting at taking another partner, like China.

One question, however, is whether China sees such a partnership quite the same way.

View the original article here

Editorial : Who Should Run the I.M.F.?

The arrest of Dominique Strauss-Kahn has turned the International Monetary Fund into front-page news and cast a harsh light on its dysfunctional workplace culture. Whoever is chosen to succeed Mr. Strauss-Kahn must be prepared to address both the European debt crisis and the institution’s own problems.

For 65 years, all of the fund’s managing directors have been chosen from the wealthy industrialized countries of Europe. That tradition, along with the United States choosing the president of the World Bank, may have fairly reflected the economic geography of 1946. But it does not reflect today’s world, and powerful new players like China, India and Brazil rightly resent it.

Both jobs ought to be filled on merit alone, with a strong emphasis on technical and diplomatic competence and managerial skills. That should not exclude qualified Europeans, but neither should it guarantee them the job.

European governments are already lobbying for Christine Lagarde, who is now the French finance minister, a job Mr. Strauss-Kahn also held. The I.M.F. has been led by French managing directors for 36 of its 65 years. That is too clubby for an institution whose main business has been to persuade foundering governments to undertake unpopular economic reforms in exchange for loans.

Even before the Strauss-Kahn scandal, the fund had a reputation among many of its female staff members as a workplace that failed to police unwanted amorous advances and other forms of harassment. The next managing director will have to make zero tolerance the rule.

Ms. Lagarde, who would be the first woman to hold the job, has the experience and many other strong qualities. But there are other talented candidates to consider, including Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Singapore’s finance minister and chairman of the I.M.F.’s financial committee, and Arminio Fraga Neto, a former head of Brazil’s central bank and an architect of that nation’s successful economic reforms. Voting on the governing board is weighted by historic economic heft. So if the European Union lines up behind Ms. Lagarde, no single developing-world alternative emerges and Washington backs Europe’s choice, there may be no real contest. It would be better for the I.M.F., and for the winner, if there was.

View the original article here

Editorial : They Should Be Condemning Syria

Syrians have shown extraordinary courage, defying a bloody government crackdown to demand greater political rights and freedom. Their courage, and their blood, should shame the many governments that are cynically supporting Syria’s election later this month to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

It is outrageous that Syria is even being discussed for membership. Since the uprising began more than seven weeks ago, President Bashar al-Assad’s security apparatus has repeatedly responded with deadly force, including firing live ammunition at a funeral and seizing critically wounded demonstrators from a hospital. Hundreds are believed to have been killed, including 14 on Sunday. Thousands have been arrested or are missing. On Monday, the government boasted that it had gained the upper hand over the protesters.

Along with India, Indonesia and the Philippines, Syria is on a consensus slate to take one of four seats set aside for nations in the so-called Asian bloc. Despite pressure from the United States and Europe, Syria is refusing to abandon its candidacy.

Mr. Assad knows no shame. But shame on the Asian bloc for not insisting that Syria withdraw. India, Indonesia and the Philippines would be a lot more credible candidates if they refused to run with Syria. Shame, too, on the Arab members of the United Nations that reaffirmed support for Syria’s election even after Mr. Assad turned his guns on his people.

The Council nearly destroyed its credibility from the start when some of the worst abusers were immediately elected members. Its record had been improving. It ousted Libya from its ranks. Two weeks ago, it adopted a resolution urging Syria to “put an end to all human rights violations” and calling for an investigation of abuses.

Electing Syria would make a mockery of the Council — one from which it might never be able to recover. And it would make a mockery of all the countries that voted for Syria. Syria must be dropped from the slate.

 

Op-Ed Contributor: Why Greece Should Reject the Euro

 

SOMETIMES there is turmoil in the markets because a government threatens to do what is best for its citizens. This seemed to be the case in Europe last week, when the German magazine Der Spiegel reported that the Greek government was threatening to stop using the euro. The euro suffered its worst two-day plunge since December 2008.

Greek and European Union officials denied the report, but a threat by Greece to jettison the euro is long overdue, and it should be prepared to carry it out. As much as the move might cost Greece in the short term, it is very unlikely that such costs would be greater than the many years of recession, stagnation and high unemployment that the European authorities are offering.

The experience of Argentina at the end of 2001 is instructive. For more than three and a half years Argentina had suffered through one of the deepest recessions of the 20th century. Its peso was pegged to the dollar, which is similar to Greece having the euro as its national currency. The Argentines took loans from the International Monetary Fund, and cut spending as poverty and unemployment soared. It was all in vain as the recession deepened.

Then Argentina defaulted on its foreign debt and cut loose from the dollar. Most economists and the business press predicted that years of disaster would ensue. But the economy shrank for just one more quarter after the devaluation and default; it then grew 63 percent over the next six years. More than 11 million people, in a nation of 39 million, were pulled out of poverty.

Within three years Argentina was back to its pre-recession level of output, despite losing more than twice as much of its gross domestic product as Greece has lost in its current recession. By contrast, in Greece, even if things go well, the I.M.F. projects that the economy will take eight years to reach its pre-crisis G.D.P. But this is likely optimistic — the I.M.F. has repeatedly lowered its near-term growth projections for Greece since the crisis began.

The main reason for Argentina’s rapid recovery was that it was finally freed from adhering to fiscal and monetary policies that stifled growth. The same would be true for Greece if it were to drop the euro. Greece would also get a boost from the devaluation’s effect on the trade balance (as Argentina did for the first six months of recovery), since its exports would be more competitive, and imports would be more expensive.

Press reports have also warned of a sharp increase in Greek debt from devaluation if it were to leave the euro zone. But the fact is that Greece would not pay this debt, as Argentina did not pay two-thirds of its foreign debt after its devaluation and default.

Portugal just concluded an agreement with the I.M.F. that projects two more years of recession. No government should accept this kind of punishment. A responsible leader would point out to the European authorities that they have the money to support Greece with countercyclical policies (like fiscal stimulus), though they are choosing not to.

From a creditors’ point of view, which the European Union authorities have apparently adopted, a country that has accumulated too much debt must be punished, so as not to encourage “bad behavior.” But punishing an entire country for the past mistakes of some of its leaders, while morally satisfying to some, is hardly the basis for sound policy.

There is also the idea that Greece — as well as Ireland, Spain and Portugal — can recover by means of an “internal devaluation.” This means increasing unemployment so much that wages fall enough to make the country more internationally competitive. The social costs of such a move, however, are extremely high and it rarely if ever works. Unemployment has doubled in Greece (to 14.7 percent), more than doubled in Spain (to 20.7 percent) and more than tripled in Ireland (to 14.7 percent). But recovery is still elusive.

You can be sure that the European authorities would offer Greece a better deal under a credible threat of leaving the euro zone. In fact, there are indications that they may have already moved in response to last week’s threat.

But the bottom line is that Greece cannot afford to settle for any deal that does not allow it to grow and make its way out of the recession. Loans that require what economists call “pro-cyclical” policies — cutting spending and raising taxes in the face of recession — should be off the table. The attempt to shrink Greece’s way out has failed. If that’s all that the European authorities have to offer, then it is time for Greece, and perhaps others, to say goodbye to the euro.

Mark Weisbrot is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

 

Some Troops Should Stay in Iraq, Speaker Says

WASHINGTON — After a high-level trip to Iraq, House Speaker John A. Boehner said on Tuesday that he would support keeping a contingent of troops in Iraq beyond the end of the year, when all American forces are scheduled to be withdrawn.

Speaker John A. Boehner recently visited Iraq, as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The latest on President Obama, the new Congress and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.

Mr. Boehner, in an interview with news organizations, said he reached that decision after meetings with American military and diplomatic officials in Iraq as well as conversations with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that convinced him of looming gaps in Iraqi security arrangements.

“I think Iraq is critical to our immediate and long-term national security interests,” said Mr. Boehner, who also visited Pakistan and Afghanistan over the spring Congressional recess. He added that too much had been invested “to simply just walk away.”

“I think a small residual force should remain and the sooner the administration engages the Iraqi government, I think the better off we are going to be,” he said.

As the top Republican and chief official of the House, Mr. Boehner’s position carries enormous weight in Congress and his view would be crucial in shaping the Republican majority’s military and fiscal position on Iraq. He would be likely to meet resistance from members of both parties who believe the occupation has gone on too long and is too costly given the current fight over budget deficits.

Under the current framework, all American soldiers are to be out of Iraq before the beginning of 2012, a departure specified in a security agreement between the two countries. But there have been indications that the Iraqi government is willing to ask that some troops stay longer. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has suggested that some American military forces could remain.

Even as he supported the idea, Mr. Boehner noted the situation was politically delicate in Iraq and in the United States, where President Obama has pledged to withdraw American forces.

Mr. Boehner said he had no recommendation on the size of the contingent that might remain or how long the troops should stay, but the military has been exploring the idea of a force of about 10,000, people briefed on the plan said. At the end of April, there were 47,000 American troops in Iraq.

“There is assistance they are going to need,” Mr. Boehner said. “I would hope that our military and diplomatic officials begin serious conversations with the Iraqis in terms of identifying those gaps in their security that they have and try to come to an agreement as soon as possible.”

 

Well: Should Your Doctor Be on Facebook?

 Nicolas Loran/Getty

When I was a third-year medical resident, an attending physician handed me his business card so that I could contact him about a patient. Printed below his phone number was something I hadn’t seen on a business card before: an e-mail address.

I thought to myself, “How pretentious!”

It’s hard to believe this occurred less than 20 years ago. Now most of my house staff wince when I suggest communicating by e-mail. E-mail is for old fogies, they imply with their body language. They prefer to text or send instant messages in the hospital, and use Facebook or Twitter with friends.

For doctors like me who have waded into social media, however gingerly, many questions arise. Is posting a medical musing or details of a recent party on Twitter or Facebook the same as chatting with colleagues while walking down the hall of the hospital? Do the same rules of etiquette and liability apply to this extremely public environment?

An article in The Journal of General Internal Medicine highlights some of the hazards of the murky mixing of personal and professional selves that occurs in the online world. In one example, a doctor had posted photos of himself and his colleagues partying on his Facebook page. These were aid doctors providing medical care in Haiti, and the unprofessional images of drinking, carousing and posing with guns cast a poor light on what by all accounts was exemplary medical work.

The article notes how the online world facilitates “disinhibition” and how a momentary lapse can be rapidly magnified and become permanently embedded in the cyberworld. Rapid dissemination, downloading and reposting make it nigh impossible to scrub unwanted images and text from the Web. Dr. Ryan Greysen, the lead author and a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation clinical scholar at Yale School of Medicine, endorses a “think before you post” philosophy, keeping in mind that you can never tell what a friend’s friend’s friend might do with a photo, video or nugget of information.

“Think about your digital footprint,” Dr. Greysen says, “but also think more broadly. How would hundreds of posts like this reflect on the profession?”

He also notes that “violations of professionalism online are no different than violations in ‘real life’ and could be sanctioned by state medical boards.” A major concern, he says, is with the new generation of physicians and students who enter the medical world after years of saturation in social media.

Dr. Kevin Pho, a primary care doctor in New Hampshire who writes the popular KevinMD blog, maintains both a personal and a professional online presence. His professional Facebook page contains his writing and commentary and can be “liked” by anyone. He limits access to his personal Facebook page to family and close friends.

I worry that it is impossible to maintain a perfect firewall, so I’ve decided to limit my online presence to the professional side of my life, keeping personal information off the Web. And before I post anything anywhere, I try to imagine what a patient of mine might think if she stumbled across it. Would it make her cringe? Would she feel awkward during her next office visit? Would this somehow compromise our relationship?

This means letting go of the fun and casual side of social media, but I think that’s simply part of the territory of being a doctor. It’s the same reason I don’t wear flip-flops and shorts to work, much as I’d surely love to. Giving up posting vacation pictures doesn’t seem like a particularly high price.

Doctors — like everyone else — are entitled to private lives, with all the attendant warts, embarrassments and unflattering moments. But now that any patient can Google a medical team, doctors — like teachers and lawyers — need to consider issues of professionalism before sharing their private lives.

But social media has its upside, too. As Dr. Pho points out, social media “can be an effective tool to guide patients to reputable sources of information,” countering the deluge of health information on the Internet. The Web likewise holds the promise of expanding accessible channels of communication between doctors and patients, though the complexities and liabilities certainly need to be ironed out.

I’m sure there are those who view a doctor with a Twitter account as pretentious, just as I viewed my own attending 20 years ago with his flashy e-mail address. But the iterations of online technology are likely to mutate faster than our staid medical institutions can adapt. In a few years these same doctors who have embraced Twitter may be seen as hopeless Luddites. The next generation of medical students will look at us with a collective eye-roll, unable to believe that we could persist in something so artless and archaic.

Dr. Danielle Ofri is an internist at Bellevue Hospital in New York City and editor in chief of the Bellevue Literary Review. Her most recent book, “Medicine in Translation: Journeys With My Patients,” is about the care of immigrants and Americans in the United States health care system.