Pakistan After Bin Laden
Like most Americans, we have long despaired at the cynicism of Pakistan’s leaders, who accept American “counterterrorist” aid while also sheltering and enabling some of the worst anti-American extremists. But we never imagined that Osama bin Laden would be found hiding in plain sight, a stone’s throw from Pakistan’s leading military academy and an hour’s drive from Islamabad. Pakistan’s behavior since then has only added to the outrage.
Instead of vowing to find out which officials were behind the scheme, Pakistan’s leaders — military and civilian — have tried to deflect all blame and stoke more anti-Americanism. Some members of Congress are asking why the United States should continue to provide billions of dollars in aid to such a faithless ally. For now, at least, an aid cutoff would be self-defeating.
There should be no illusions. We see no sign that Pakistan is ready to stop playing all sides, or will ever figure out that the fight against extremists isn’t a favor to the United States but essential to its own survival.
The equally hard truth is that the United States never would have gotten Bin Laden if it did not have the large military and Central Intelligence Agency presence on the ground that Pakistan has permitted — and American aid has paid for — since 9/11.
There are many more extremists hiding in Pakistan. While Pakistani leaders publicly rail against American drone strikes, they privately tolerate them. Washington needs Islamabad’s cooperation to supply troops in Afghanistan. The best hope for getting out of Afghanistan is some political deal with the Taliban. Pakistan can help facilitate such a deal or undermine it.
There is one other chilling point to consider: the stability of Pakistan’s government — and its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan’s Army might be able to stave off a militant takeover, without American military backing, but we wouldn’t want to bet on it.
President Obama needs to leverage this moment. Many Pakistanis are furious about the raid on their territory. Parliament held an unusual session on Friday, demanding answers from the spy chief who accused Washington of conducting a “sting operation on us.” But many are also outraged by the fact that Bin Laden managed to hide in their country for so long. “Could the self-appointed custodians of the national interest themselves be the greatest threat to national security?” wrote Cyril Almeida of the Dawn newspaper. The television journalist Kamran Khan declared, “We have become the biggest haven of terrorism in the world.”
Parliament adopted a resolution condemning the unilateral attack on Bin Laden as a violation of sovereignty and threatened to close American military supply routes to Afghanistan if drone strikes are not halted. It was not a helpful gesture.
Pakistani leaders are nervous about what more may come out. The trove of computer files seized by the Americans may provide some welcome bargaining power.
The Obama administration also needs to take a harder look at military aid to Pakistan to determine what is vital for counterterrorism and what might be tied to specific benchmarks, like apprehending the Taliban chief, Mullah Muhammad Omar, and members of the Haqqani network.
In its fury, this country should also not lose sight of the fact Pakistan has the potential to be a far greater nightmare than Afghanistan under the Taliban. Economic aid is the best long-term hope of changing the country’s political culture. The five-year, $7.5 billion package for schools, energy and other projects hasn’t gotten off the ground. Congress must approve trade legislation, which is the best way to develop an outward-looking middle class.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton should go ahead with her visit to Pakistan. President Obama should delay setting a date for his trip. Pakistan’s leaders have very tough decisions to make. They need to realize that the days of Washington’s unconditional support are over.
One Year and Many Billions Later
Last May’s $140 billion European bailout was supposed to ease Greece’s return to private financial markets. But it demanded too much too soon in the way of growth-killing austerity. And it insisted that Greece keep paying its lenders in full and on time.
Greece is in deep trouble again. Yet European Union finance ministers meeting Monday are expected to plan for a further $86 billion dose of the same failed medicine. Something has to be done to keep paying Greece’s bills, which no private lender wants to finance. But the same sort of bailout is not the answer.
Over the next year, the European Union must put in place arrangements to reschedule Greece’s more than $400 billion in debt — extending payouts to both public and private lenders, the latter mainly German and French banks, or reducing the amount owed or possibly both.
Without debt restructuring, Athens will have to keep coming back to Europe for more cash to pay off the banks and the burden on European taxpayers will keep growing. The longer Europe’s leaders hide from this fact, the bigger the eventual bill will be, and the longer Greeks will have to wait for renewed growth.
Greece’s economy shrank 4.5 percent last year and is projected to fall an additional 3 percent this year. Average salaries are down roughly 10 percent. Those grim numbers have translated into shrinking tax revenues and bigger budget deficits. Greece’s national debt, now just over 140 percent of gross domestic product, is on track to rise to 160 percent next year, and keep rising.
Athens has failed to meet its own deficit-cutting targets. Prime Minister George Papandreou needs to deliver on better tax collection, privatization of public utilities and health care reform. These politically difficult measures won’t come close to balancing Greece’s books, but they will help improve the country’s long-term economic prospects. And they will make it politically easier for other European governments to agree to debt rescheduling.
A Greek rescheduling could set a worrisome precedent. But no serious banker any longer believes Greece can pay all that it owes on time. Greece got itself into this mess. But Europe will have to help it get out. It will become even harder the longer Europe waits and pretends.
The Ensign Investigation, to Be Continued
The Senate Ethics Committee acted responsibly in referring the sordid case of former Senator John Ensign to federal authorities for possible criminal violations. Rather than let the matter fade with the Nevada Republican’s hurried resignation before his scheduled deposition, the panel stressed that there was “substantial credible evidence” he violated the law.
After a 22-month investigation, the committee pointed to eight areas for further investigation by the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission. These focus on the ways Mr. Ensign sought to contain news of his affair with the wife of a staff aide. The senator helped the aggrieved aide — a longtime friend — into a lobbying career. The senator’s parents also gave the aide a $96,000 “gift,” which they insisted was not hush money.
“Lives were destroyed by his actions,” Senator Barbara Boxer, the ethics chairwoman told the attentive chamber. While Mr. Ensign denied violating laws and ethics standards, Ms. Boxer said the panel investigators concluded that his misbehavior could have led to his expulsion from the Senate.
The inquiry record said Mr. Ensign shredded and deleted relevant documents, “marketed” his former aide to find potential clients and used Gmail to evade disclosure requirements.
The committee has now asked Justice and the F.E.C. to investigate further. Both had previously declined to take action in their inquiries of the senator. The election commission, which is particularly dysfunctional, rebuffed its own staff’s findings that the $96,000 payment violated election law. They need to take a deeper, less politician-friendly, look at the committee’s documentation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment