An interesting read about the Dalai Lama and Ronald Reagan
The Dalai Lama/Ronald Reagan Plan to Save Afghanistan
June 4, 2010 at 1:39PM by John H. Richardson
Remember right after 9/11, when the Dalai Lama said we should try giving the Taliban love? It sounded naïve, didn't it? And it's pretty much forgotten, down there in the dustbin of impossible ideas, "a fish with feathers."
Except, of course, that love is now our official strategy. Although the hot war in Kandahar gets all the press, the other Afghanistan story is all the troops building schools and setting up provincial administrations, the USAID people trying to help with agriculture, the various foundations and charities hard at work. And the love war is actually starting to provide a little glimmer of hope.
And here's the punch line: A group of hard-core conservative capitalists are leading the charge.
But before I get into that, a little more from the Dalai Lama. I went back to look at exactly what he said in those angry and wounded days and it just blew me away. It's totally worth reading in full, but here are some excerpts:
Terrorism cannot be overcome by the use of force because it does not address the complex underlying problems. In fact the use of force may not only fail to solve the problems, it may exacerbate them and frequently leaves destruction and suffering in its wake ...
Retaliatory military action by the United States may bring some satisfaction and short-term results but it will not root out the problem of terrorism. Long-term measures need to be taken. The US must examine the factors that breed and give rise to terrorism ...
I think this is what Karl Rove meant when, just a few days after the attack, he sneered at Democrats and tried to divide the country:
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
Ugh, now I feel dirty. Let's go back to the Dalai Lama for a cleansing breath:
In the case of conflict it is important to exercise restraint before the situation gets out of hand. Once the causes and conditions which lead to violent clashes have ripened, it is very difficult to restore peace. Violence undoubtedly breeds more violence. If we instinctively retaliate when violence is done to us, what can we expect other than that our opponent will also feel justified to retaliate in turn? This is how violence escalates. Preventive measures and restraint must be observed at an earlier stage. Clearly leaders need to be alert, far-sighted and decisive ...
Alas, you can't always get what you need. But if you try sometimes ...
Which brings us to capitalism. Last week at the Kauffman Foundation's conference on war-zone economics, I met a man named John Sullivan. He runs the Center for International Private Enterprise, which is - ironically - funded by the socialists in the U.S. Government and the arch-conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Since 2002, he's been traveling to Afghanistan to fund business education and encourage small businesses. His latest survey (PDF) shows some real positive signs:
•Four out of five businesspeople feel the economy is getting better.
•At 37 percent of the businesses surveyed, hiring increased in 2009.
•75 percent of businesses expected sales and hiring to increase in 2010.
•Six in ten plan to hire more people in the next six months.
•Four in ten plan to buy office equipment.
•Three in ten have other growth plans, like expanding into new buildings or giving advanced training to employees.
Sullivan filled in the outline when I spoke to him again yesterday: "This is a country that had been destroyed, not so much by the U.S. invasion as years of infighting between the various clans. There was very little economic activity - walking down Chicken Street in Kabul, there was no supermarket, very few stores, everything was in cash. I wanted to buy some items to take back, and I had to find someone local to vouch for me otherwise they wouldn't take a check - no banks had depository relationships with other banks, so checks had to be taken to Dubai to be cashed."
In response, Sullivan established an education program called Tashabos that is teaching entrepreneurship to more than 40,000 high school students, half of whom are girls. "That has a potential to create a dynamic change in that society," he said. "And many of them take their books home and share them with their parents, many of whom have small businesses of their own." (Capitalist tools take note: they want to expand the program all over the country but their $1 million budget won't allow it.)
They're also helping to train the Afghanistan Builder's Association, which encourages the construction industry, and they work with the new provincial councils to establish property rights and the rule of law.
Now you can cash a check, and a few restaurants and hotels take credit cards.
Given his conservative credentials, Sullivan seemed like a good person to ask the Karl Rove question: why should we waste our money giving the Afghanis "therapy and understanding?"
"We firmly believe it's in America's national interest to develop counter-party thriving economies throughout the world," he said. This vision actually comes from Ronald Reagan, who established the National Foundation for Democracy, which funds Sullivan's group on the idea that no two countries with McDonald's have ever gone to war with each other.
"If the security situation continues to improve, I would expect in next 10 to 15 years you could see growth well in excess of 10 percent a year."
Big problems remain, of course, as Sullivan and Zalmay Khalizad discuss in more detail here. In order, they are: security, corruption, a legal system that understands and enforces contracts, and regular electricity. Also, they need more technocrats, which is something you might call government bureaucrats if you were not on your way to a Tea Party. "The wages are very low for civil servants, so it's hard to attract good people."
By this time Sullivan's Reaganite vision was sounding awful liberal to me, so I mentioned my Buddhist musings. "This may be the first time in history you're linked in a story with the Dalai Lama," I joked.
Sullivan perked up. "He's a big supporter of ours! I just met him, he's a terrific guy. He was just here and the National Endowment for Democracy gave him the Spirit of Democracy Award. In fact, he asked us to set up a business training program in Lhasa - so it's not as much of a coincidence as you think."
Photo Credit: Ali Flint
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/afghanistan-development-strategy-060410#ixzz0pz3W7aj0
June 4, 2010 at 1:39PM by John H. Richardson
Remember right after 9/11, when the Dalai Lama said we should try giving the Taliban love? It sounded naïve, didn't it? And it's pretty much forgotten, down there in the dustbin of impossible ideas, "a fish with feathers."
Except, of course, that love is now our official strategy. Although the hot war in Kandahar gets all the press, the other Afghanistan story is all the troops building schools and setting up provincial administrations, the USAID people trying to help with agriculture, the various foundations and charities hard at work. And the love war is actually starting to provide a little glimmer of hope.
And here's the punch line: A group of hard-core conservative capitalists are leading the charge.
But before I get into that, a little more from the Dalai Lama. I went back to look at exactly what he said in those angry and wounded days and it just blew me away. It's totally worth reading in full, but here are some excerpts:
Terrorism cannot be overcome by the use of force because it does not address the complex underlying problems. In fact the use of force may not only fail to solve the problems, it may exacerbate them and frequently leaves destruction and suffering in its wake ...
Retaliatory military action by the United States may bring some satisfaction and short-term results but it will not root out the problem of terrorism. Long-term measures need to be taken. The US must examine the factors that breed and give rise to terrorism ...
I think this is what Karl Rove meant when, just a few days after the attack, he sneered at Democrats and tried to divide the country:
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
Ugh, now I feel dirty. Let's go back to the Dalai Lama for a cleansing breath:
In the case of conflict it is important to exercise restraint before the situation gets out of hand. Once the causes and conditions which lead to violent clashes have ripened, it is very difficult to restore peace. Violence undoubtedly breeds more violence. If we instinctively retaliate when violence is done to us, what can we expect other than that our opponent will also feel justified to retaliate in turn? This is how violence escalates. Preventive measures and restraint must be observed at an earlier stage. Clearly leaders need to be alert, far-sighted and decisive ...
Alas, you can't always get what you need. But if you try sometimes ...
Which brings us to capitalism. Last week at the Kauffman Foundation's conference on war-zone economics, I met a man named John Sullivan. He runs the Center for International Private Enterprise, which is - ironically - funded by the socialists in the U.S. Government and the arch-conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Since 2002, he's been traveling to Afghanistan to fund business education and encourage small businesses. His latest survey (PDF) shows some real positive signs:
•Four out of five businesspeople feel the economy is getting better.
•At 37 percent of the businesses surveyed, hiring increased in 2009.
•75 percent of businesses expected sales and hiring to increase in 2010.
•Six in ten plan to hire more people in the next six months.
•Four in ten plan to buy office equipment.
•Three in ten have other growth plans, like expanding into new buildings or giving advanced training to employees.
Sullivan filled in the outline when I spoke to him again yesterday: "This is a country that had been destroyed, not so much by the U.S. invasion as years of infighting between the various clans. There was very little economic activity - walking down Chicken Street in Kabul, there was no supermarket, very few stores, everything was in cash. I wanted to buy some items to take back, and I had to find someone local to vouch for me otherwise they wouldn't take a check - no banks had depository relationships with other banks, so checks had to be taken to Dubai to be cashed."
In response, Sullivan established an education program called Tashabos that is teaching entrepreneurship to more than 40,000 high school students, half of whom are girls. "That has a potential to create a dynamic change in that society," he said. "And many of them take their books home and share them with their parents, many of whom have small businesses of their own." (Capitalist tools take note: they want to expand the program all over the country but their $1 million budget won't allow it.)
They're also helping to train the Afghanistan Builder's Association, which encourages the construction industry, and they work with the new provincial councils to establish property rights and the rule of law.
Now you can cash a check, and a few restaurants and hotels take credit cards.
Given his conservative credentials, Sullivan seemed like a good person to ask the Karl Rove question: why should we waste our money giving the Afghanis "therapy and understanding?"
"We firmly believe it's in America's national interest to develop counter-party thriving economies throughout the world," he said. This vision actually comes from Ronald Reagan, who established the National Foundation for Democracy, which funds Sullivan's group on the idea that no two countries with McDonald's have ever gone to war with each other.
"If the security situation continues to improve, I would expect in next 10 to 15 years you could see growth well in excess of 10 percent a year."
Big problems remain, of course, as Sullivan and Zalmay Khalizad discuss in more detail here. In order, they are: security, corruption, a legal system that understands and enforces contracts, and regular electricity. Also, they need more technocrats, which is something you might call government bureaucrats if you were not on your way to a Tea Party. "The wages are very low for civil servants, so it's hard to attract good people."
By this time Sullivan's Reaganite vision was sounding awful liberal to me, so I mentioned my Buddhist musings. "This may be the first time in history you're linked in a story with the Dalai Lama," I joked.
Sullivan perked up. "He's a big supporter of ours! I just met him, he's a terrific guy. He was just here and the National Endowment for Democracy gave him the Spirit of Democracy Award. In fact, he asked us to set up a business training program in Lhasa - so it's not as much of a coincidence as you think."
Photo Credit: Ali Flint
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/afghanistan-development-strategy-060410#ixzz0pz3W7aj0