Guest Columnist

Promote peace talks, Afghan war is not a success

Guest Columnist — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:23:14 +0000

By guest writer Hanan Habibzai, an Afghan journalist and commentator based in London

The attack on Kabul on January 17,which took place only metres away from the Presidential Palace, was evidence that not only have the international community and the Afghan government failed to win the people’s hearts and minds, but also they have lost their trust. The military conflict has now reached even the heart of Kabul. It is hard to imagine anywhere safe in the whole country.

But at this time of intensification of conflict, a debate is taking place among Afghan parliamentarians questioning the presence of the US and NATO in Afghanistan. This is the anti-Western sentiment that the Taliban have for long been whispering into the ears of ordinary Afghans in the villages and valleys of the restive regions. Those Afghans who saw their children die, those who watched their women and elders in pools of blood, are increasingly becoming susceptible to this type of rhetoric. Many are in the process of changing their minds about the international troops.

The military commanders say that they have now made “protecting civilians” their priority, but just last month, 10 children were killed during a night-time raid carried out by US-special forces in eastern Kunar Province. As long as these incidents keep happening public anger against the US presence in Afghanistan will continue to grow.

Military attacks carried out by foreigners and that result in the killing of civilians are an insult to Afghans’ traditions and beliefs. In many instances, when the local population accuse international forces of killing civilians, the troops deny it and often dismiss evidence provided by Afghans. Also commonly heard is that troops were targeting terrorists in a raid, even when the victims are school children, or mothers with young children.

Sadly these tradgedies overshadow the killing of civilians in suicide attacks by the Taliban – preventing the public mourning of the innocents who lose their lives in such attacks. It has given cover to Taliban attacks that result in civilian killings across the country. Ordinary Afghans are now only talking against US military behaviour and forget attacks by Taliban which have killed hundreds of civilians.

In 2003 and 2004, I was reporting for international media agencies on clashes between two notorious warlords in the north, Rashid Dostom and Atta Mohammad. At the time I regarded the American presence in Afghanistan as crucial for protecting the country from war criminals and for helping to bring stability to the country. But now, I have begun to lose hope. The international security forces are creating such a terrifying atmosphere that it is hard for people to sleep at night.

These days, when I watch state-run Afghan TV, which is funded by American money, I am surprised by how openly Afghan experts criticize US military tactics in Afghanistan. This is new. A recent discussion program featured an influential historian and supporter of President Karzai, Habibullah Rafi. Rafi was talking about civilian casualties and warning American troops to end their animosity towards Afghan people. The other guest, parliamentarian Iqbal Safi, warned that if American troops continue to kill civilians, they will face the same fate as the Red Army, which left Afghanistan, defeated, and shamed.The MP’s anger was clearly visible. The tension between Afghans and Americans is just beginning to surface but both countries are yet to see the terrible consequences of the discrepancy.

Americans should stop their stubborn approach in Afghanistan and take a more diplomatic and talk oriented track.

Afghan Taliban should be brought to the political process and should be recognised as a political entity in Afghanistan.

Traditionally, mosques are run and controlled by Mullahs and historically they have enormous impact on peoples’ opinion in Afghanistan. One of the most effective ways to achieve stability in Afghanistan is to win the support of Mullahs and of influential religious leaders. I recommend that the international community negotiates with Taliban. War alone will never produce a brighter future for Afghans; it can only result in the loss of more and more lives.

Only when the violence ebbs will the torch of democracy be lit. As long as the fear and instability spreads, as long as each family is mourning a loss, so the enmities will deepen between families and tribes, and between the US and Afghanistan. Negotiation is always going to be more productive than violence.

Some will say that the Taliban are too cruel, and that if they become a part of the government, they may not allow women to go to work or school. Others will say that before negotiations there needs to be political reform to remove the warlords who massacred thousands, and some of whom were backed by the United States. There will be questions, and concerns. But in spite of these, there can be no doubt that what Afghans want more than anything is for the violence and killing to stop. The London conference is the perfect opportunity for a decisive move towards negotiations and peace talks.

Time for the Fed to stand up to its critics

Guest Columnist — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:00:18 +0000

John M. Berry is a guest columnist who has covered the economy for four decades for the Washington Post and other publications.By John M. BerryFinancial crises and the policies to deal with them top the agenda at the Kansas City Fed’s Jackson Hole conference. But what is actually going to be on everyone’s mind at the august gathering is the uncertain future of the Federal Reserve itself.Many members of Congress want to clip the Fed’s wings for failing to prevent the crisis and for its actions since the meltdown began two years ago. In particular, most are angry about government bailouts, starting with the $29 billion in Fed backing for the purchase of Bear Stearns by JPMorgan Chase.Financial institutions got into trouble because they took enormous risks, and the public bailouts look suspiciously like unjustified rewards for fat cats’ wildly reckless behavior. But the bailouts were an unavoidable cost of halting the country’s plunge into a second Great Depression. Congress has got to swallow its anger and do what is needed for the future.The first objective on the financial reform agenda when Congress reconvenes next month should be to do no harm. That means killing legislation that would direct the Government Accountability Office to “audit” the Fed’s monetary policy actions. Such audits could allow politicians to influence those decisions, which is exactly what some of the bill’s sponsors want.Angry as they may be at the central bank right now, members of Congress would surely rue the day they had to deal directly with raising interest rates — a step that will inevitably be needed at some point to curb inflation and keep the economy on an even keel.Whatever else the role of the Fed is to be, its monetary policy independence should be preserved as it pursues its twin mandates of stable prices and maximum sustainable employment. And Fed officials need to be insulated from political pressures.In return for that insulation, the Fed has become ever more open and accountable. Since 1994, the central bank has started announcing policy changes as soon as they are made, quickly publishing detailed minutes of policymaking meetings, and releasing transcripts after a five-year lag. It also now makes public details of the long-term forecasts of its top officials.The second Fed role that must be preserved in the national interest is that of lender of last resort to financial institutions. Solvent banks that get squeezed for cash must be able to borrow directly from the central bank to prevent a failure that could trigger a collapse of other institutions.Of course, the Fed, led by Ben Bernanke, went far beyond that traditional lending role last year. Citing legal authority not used since the 1930s, it loaned money not just to banks but to brokers, investment banks and insurance companies. And when that failed to stabilize money markets, it risked hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to buy mortgage-backed securities and other private credit instruments to make credit more available to businesses and households.Bernanke and other Fed officials were uncomfortable extending credit in these unusual ways, which really ought to have been the Treasury’s responsibility. But, objectionable as they were to many members of Congress and to a number of economists, these measures have proved essential. In any case, the Treasury Department did not have the money or the authority to act. To settle this for the future, Treasury should be granted both under the financial system overhaul.There is also plenty of opposition to the administration’s proposal to give the Fed broad oversight of financial markets as a regulator of systemic risk. The crisis has demonstrated that such a regulator is badly needed, and the Fed should win this one by default. Despite the central bank’s failure to head off the crisis, there is simply no other agency — not the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, the Comptroller of the Currency or any other — capable of doing the job.As for the remaining key issue, consumer protection, Bernanke should cede responsibility for truth-in-lending and all related activities to the new consumer agency proposed by the administration. If he does that, the Fed will be more likely to keep the powers it really needs.

The revenge of Madoff’s victims

Guest Columnist — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:50:26 +0000

By Lynnley Browning (Lynnley Browning is a guest columnist. The views expressed are her own. She is a frequent contributor to the business pages of The New York Times and is a former Moscow-based correspondent for Reuters, where she covered energy and commodities.)Some have argued that the victims of Bernie Madoff’s enormous fraud should simply take their lumps for having trusted their money to the greatest con artist in history.The victims, not surprisingly, disagree. More important, many of them are organizing in a way that could change the way investors are treated in the future. As the Obama administration pushes to add greater protections and even a new agency for investors, the Madoff victims stand to make an impact that goes beyond simply being objects of pity.