Experts Advise U.S. To Focus On Relationship With Pakistan’s People

By Annie Berman-Talk Radio News Service

A panel of experts at the Cato Institute said that a key step in strengthening the relationship between Pakistan and the U.S. is to convince the Pakistani people to favor the United States.
“We face a huge obstacle of not really understanding each other and definitely not trusting each other,” said Wendy Chamberlin, the former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan and President of the Middle East Institute. “We need to help that Pakistanis put human safety and security first, this means a significant investment in local police, community police, because that is where people are protected and through local police you have the better [intelligence] for the kind of insurgencies we are facing.”

According to Chamberlin, peaceful relations between the US and Pakistan could be impeded by a number of other risks including shaky military relations, the role of religion, deadly drone attacks, and a history of miscommunication.

Mukhtar Kahn, an analyst at the Jamestown Foundation, described the Pakistani population as a strong, civil society.

“There is a strong middle class.  Pakistan has a population of 170 million people, and around 60 million people are the middle class.  Most of them are against the Taliban,” said Khan.

“One of the most important things is that Pakistan has a very vibrant media these days. Pakistan has more than 50 independent TV channels...[people] are debating everyday...People are participating in those debates,” Khan added.

In order to improve relations between the U.S. and Pakistan, Kahn suggested increasing public diplomacy, cultural exchange programs, and strategic communication among the Pakistani people regarding the threat of the Taliban.

Lebanon’s Elections An Extraordinary Step Forward

By Celia Canon-Talk Radio News Service

Lebanon has undergone a period of transition as it moves toward a more democratic political system.

As witnessed by the June 7th presidential elections that propelled the Pro-Western Party to power, the impulse to draw a line between the past and the present has brought over 50% of the population to vote.

Graeme Bannerman, MEI adjunct scholar, discussed the positive changes that took place in Lebanon this weekend.

Bannerman said that “The enthusiasm of the Lebanese cannot be underestimated,” later adding that “There was enthusiasm throughout the country for the elections even in areas where there was not stiffed race.”

In 2005, Lebanon underwent a domestic revolution which led to the expulsion of the Syrian military and intelligence, following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Ongoing investigations have pointed to Syria as the executioner. 

Syrian was in control of Lebanese politics for over 30 years.

This year’s elections were significant to Lebanon in that they reflected a more stable environment to vote for a new government, one that would have seen candidates lead actual campaigns instead of being appointment out of urgency.

On the many points of democratic impulse, Bannerman said “In areas where there was competition and that was mainly in the christian regions, there was very stiff competition and it was very spirited competition: there were long line, there were people who cared about it,  and people showed up and voted.”

In addition to more options, Bannerman spoke of a change in the role of the army, an institution often assumed to be authoritative, saying that “The security was provided by the army and the police, but it was not intimidating security, it was present, it was there it was efficient... The election as a whole went well.”

However Bannerman also mitigated his words, warning that “25% of the districts did not have government candidates” and there were “people with election shirts inside the polling space.”

“There were clearly things they need to improve but everybody gives credit for this being a good election to the minister of the interior,” said Bannerman.

In fact, says Bannerman, even “The opposition... said it was a good election.”

"Where in the Arab world do you actually have an election where people honestly believe that they can affect the outcome of their lives and their government and everything else?,” Bannerman said.

What to do in Somalia?

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

The lack of a coordinated international response might have emboldened pirates off the coast of Africa to step up their terror, according to Retired Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff. This comes on the heels of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announcing the Obama Administration’s new approach to the situation in Somalia, which includes the U.S. seizure of financial assets.

Cosgriff believes that a coordinating authority among the nations with maritime interests in the region could help present a unified front against pirates.

“With so many different players on the field, it’s a bit like an all-star game without an authoritative coach. There are differing rules of engagement, national approaches, and limits on what they want their warships to do.” Cosgriff said it’s a challenge “to have the right ship from the right navy in the right place at the right time to do what you want to do.”

Cosgriff is former commander of the US Naval Forces Central Command. He held a talk at the Middle East Institute, at which he addressed the possible courses of action which could be taken against maritime piracy in the nearly 400,000 square mile region along the Somali coast.

“Doing nothing, or being ineffective at what we do, strikes me as bad policy,” said the commander, who addressed five possible courses of action that could be taken to curb the lawlessness:

• Do Nothing: Companies which traffic goods off of the African Horn would pay ransoms and treat piracy as a cost of business.
• Arm the Crews: Ship crews would be expected to maintain their own security through hiring private security forces or arming their mariners.
• Flood the Zone: International naval coalitions and unofficial patchworks of navies “with significant maritime interests” would patrol the region.
• Go in on ground - Light: Tactical airstrikes and troops on the ground aimed at equipment and infrastructure within known pirate camps along the Somali coastline.
• Go in on ground - Heavy: Tactical airstrikes and troops on the ground to flush out the pirate camps, seize property, and not allow the pirates to bare the fruits of their actions.

Cosgriff emphasized the importance of a coordinated international response in whatever route was selected, because it is an “international problem in the great global commons known as the sea.” A coordinated response would provide a uniform framework in which to react to pirates when they engage in hostility, according to Cosgriff. He said that since the U.S. is a global maritime leader, it should take a leading role in the solution.

“Whatever lies ahead, we have to take care… that the cure is not worse than the disease,” he said.

Cosgriff acknowledged that piracy is a business, and doesn’t believe that it is rooted in simple poverty and desperation, although he acknowledged those as contributing factors. “The overall problem is that of organized criminal clans,” groups which he said, “try to extend seaward the rule of the gun which pertains in much of Somalia.” He continued, “in short, piracy pays.”

Somalia has faced ongoing violence and lawlessness since the government collapsed in 1991.

Legal counsel Israeli organization urges Obama Administration to engage

Today The Middle East Institute (MEI) held a discussion on Jerusalem and Israel Palestine peace with Danny Seidemann, Israeli lawyer and legal counsel to Ir Amim, an Israeli organization concerned with the future of Jerusalem. The discussion addressed concerns regarding the violent threat of sacred space. Seidemann indicated that Isralies and Palestine's have got a National and political conflict ruled by religious beliefs. Seidemann expressed encouraging words pertaining to the current conflict between Israel and Palestine urging the Obama Administration to engage in this and to redefine the US relationship with the Middle East. The central concern was that although the Obama Administration faces serious complexities regarding this matter, the hope for negations are existing.

By Candyce Torres, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service