Note: I guess you could consider this an "endorsement" diary of sorts; however, I should say that it's taken me several months to come to this conclusion. Most likely, my vote (in NJ) won't matter, but I'm confident that whoever Democrats choose in Iowa and New Hampshire will be a good candidate. Hear me out, and draw your own conclusions. Thanks!
- Stephen Yellin
"I’ve been saying for some time that Pakistan is the most complex country we deal with – and that a crisis was just waiting to happen."
- Joe Biden, November 8th, 2007
Two days ago, a massive shock shook the foundations of hope and progress in Pakistan – and with it, the foundations of hope and progress in the region at large. A stable and – more importantly – legitimate Pakistani government would be able to stop the growing tide of terrorism along the border with Afghanistan by preventing Al Qaeda from openly straddling its western border. It would be able to act on its popular support, not relying on the United States and our tax dollars, and provide a true example of Middle Eastern democracy for Islamic nations to follow. And it would not be declaring martial law, arresting and torturing political opponents and using its military to hold on to power.
Pervez Musharraf’s military dictatorship is not legitimate. After Thursday’s assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, it is clearly not stable either.
And who are we to resolve this chaotic situation? Our President is an international joke (or worse, hated by the world community), our moral value is tarnished from Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib, and our troops are stranded in Iraq, with all too little attention paid to Afghanistan in this country and in the media. Until the news broke yesterday morning about the assassination, the most commonly-talked about story was about a tiger mauling. Sorry America, but we no longer have time for the trivial in our national discourse.
Before I go any further, let me say this about our Democratic Party candidates for President – they’re all good people. I will work hard to ensure that one of them is elected President in 2008. They’d all make good Presidents, considering that 90% of what they are proposing is exactly the same. Yet when it comes to domestic policy, the next President will be forced to reckon with a growing economic crisis and a $9 trillion national debt; in short, not much will be done at home other than to survive. And no matter who we elect President in 2008, that will be the reality he or she faces.
It is in foreign policy where the next President of the United States can make the biggest difference – with opportunities and challenges all across the globe. Forget Iraq, if possible for a moment. We have crisis all over the world that will demand a President who knows what they’re doing from Day One.
Russia is increasingly sliding away from democracy.
China is flourishing as a capitalist dictatorship – our worst nightmare.
Israel remains locked in a mortal embrace with the Palestinian people.
Syria is threatening to turn Lebanon into a puppet government.
Latin America is increasingly hostile, led by Chavez in Venezuela.
And now Pakistan is going to hell in a handbasket. Need I go on?
This is no time for amateurs when it comes to foreign policy. This is no time to rely on advisors, the Pentagon or the CIA to tell the President what to do overseas. And this is no time for whining to foreign leaders when we don’t get our way, and calling that our foreign policy "change" (as the Bush Administration has done).
We need to act – now. We need Joe Biden – now.
Why Biden? Simply put, he’s had 35 years to learn what it takes to conduct foreign policy. Chris Dodd has never chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or warned before 9/11 of terrorists flying planes; Bill Richardson has not fought for SALT II, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty or for NATO to include newly freed Eastern European countries like Poland and Hungary. And when it comes to foreign policy experience, Joe Biden is light-years ahead of "the leaders" in the polls.
I’ve noticed over the last several months that many people online like Biden, and see him as either a VP or as Secretary of State in their favorite candidate’s administration. This was the same strategy employed by picking Colin Powell in 2000 by George W. Bush as Secretary of State; namely, if the President is surrounded by smart people, than he/she will do the "right" thing. Seven years later, George Bush has led the charge into the abyss, and Colin Powell was reduced to lying to the United Nations over Iraq’s WMD program. It’s the President who has to be responsible, intelligent and just when conducting foreign policy – for, as Harry Truman once said, "the Buck Stops Here".
Let’s go back to Pakistan, as that is the issue of immediate importance. What separates Joe Biden from the Democratic (and Republican) field is not only that he has a plan to deal with the Pakistani crisis – but that he knows how to put that into motion the moment he gets into office. The same day that Musharraf suspended the Pakistani Constitution and declared martial law in response to popular discontent against his rule, Joe Biden got on the phone with Musharraf and gave him some much-needed warnings. It took President Bush five days to make his own call.
"President Bush’s first reaction was to call on President Musharraf to reverse course. Given the stakes, I thought it was important to actually call him – which is exactly what I did. I also spoke to opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. President Musharraf and I had a very direct and detailed discussion. I told him how critical it is that elections go forward as planned in January, that he follows through on his commitment to take off his uniform, and that he restores the rule of law to Pakistan."
http://www.joebiden.com/...
Musharraf took all three steps in the last month. Sadly, it has not been enough, as the murder of Ms. Bhutto demonstrates. The situation in Pakistan will probably get worse before it gets better, and will require careful monitoring over the next days and weeks.
Thanks to the media’s "horserace" mentality, Joe Biden has largely been counted out. Still, I believe that in a fair fight (with equal funding for each candidate) he would be our nominee. And on the off chance that he pulls off an upset in the primaries, let’s take a look at what he’d do to help change the situation in Pakistan for the better:
"Beyond the current crisis lurks a far deeper problem. The relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan is largely transactional — and this transaction isn’t working for either party. From America’s perspective, we’ve spent billions of dollars on a bet that Pakistan’s government would take the fight to the Taliban and Al Qaeda while putting the country back on the path to democracy. It has done neither.
From Pakistan’s perspective, America is an unreliable ally that will abandon Pakistan the moment it’s convenient to do so, and whose support has done little more than bolster unrepresentative rulers.
It is time for a new approach.
We’ve got to move from a transactional relationship -- the exchange of aid for services -- to the normal, functional relationship we enjoy with all of our other military allies and friendly nations. We’ve got to move from a policy concentrated on one man – President Musharraf – to a policy centered on an entire people... the people of Pakistan. Like any major policy shift, to gain long-term benefits we’ll have to shoulder short term costs. But given the stakes, those costs are worth it.
Here are the four elements of this new strategy.
First, triple non-security aid, to $1.5 billion annually. For at least a decade. This aid would be unconditioned: it’s our pledge to the Pakistani people. Instead of funding military hardware, it would build schools, clinics, and roads.
Second, condition security aid on performance. We should base our security aid on clear results. We’re now spending well over $1 billion annually, and it’s not clear we’re getting our money’s worth. I’d spend more if we get better returns—and less if we don’t.
Third, help Pakistan enjoy a "democracy dividend." The first year of democratic rule should bring an additional $1 billion -- above the $1.5 billion non-security aid baseline. And I would tie future non-security aid -- again, above the guaranteed baseline -- to Pakistan’s progress in developing democratic institutions and meeting good-governance norms.
Fourth, engage the Pakistani people, not just their rulers. This will involve everything from improved public diplomacy and educational exchanges to high impact projects that actually change people’s lives. "
Biden also ties in the future of the Middle East – Iraq, Iran and more – to this effort:
"This new Pakistan policy cannot succeed in isolation. Conditions in the region and in the broader Muslim world – conditions that the United States can affect – will make a huge difference, for good or for bad. We’ve got to connect the dots – to be, as I suggested at the outset, smart as well as strong. First, there’s what we should do.
To increase the prospects that Pakistan will take the lead in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, we should rededicate ourselves to a forgotten war: Afghanistan. When we shifted resources away from Afghanistan to Iraq, Musharraf concluded the Taliban would rebound, so he cut a deal with them.
Redoubling our efforts in Afghanistan – not just with more troops but with the right kind... and with a reconstruction effort that matches President Bush’s Marshall Plan rhetoric... would embolden Pakistan’s government to take a harder line on the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Second, there’s what we should not do. Consider all this talk of war with Iran. It is totally counter-productive to achieving our ends in Iran... but also in Pakistan. In Iran, it allows President Ahmadinejad to distract the Iranian people from the failures of his leadership... and adds a huge security premium to the price of oil, with the proceeds going from our consumers to Iran’s government. And in Pakistan and also Afghanistan, anything the fuels the sense of an American crusade against Islam puts moderates on the defensive and empowers extremists. It is hard to think of a more self-defeating policy."
This is what appeals most to me about Joe Biden – that he gets foreign policy, and knows exactly what to do in making our foreign policy work correctly once again. Even the other candidates have said as much. If you go to http://www.joebiden.com and click on "Joe is Right" in the video section (on the front page), you’ll see what I mean. And if the so-called "major" candidates say that Joe Biden’s positions are their own, why not go with the original messenger?
In closing, I should say that Biden’s record isn’t 100% perfect – no one who’s served 35 years in the US Senate could be. I know that the Bankruptcy Bill in particular annoys many of us – myself included – but it simply shouldn’t disqualify him. And on so many other issues, Joe Biden has been right – not only with us, but with the country’s best interests. From the Iraq federalization plan to the Violence against Women Act, to his foresight vis-à-vis Pakistan and Iran to his unwavering support for a women’s right to choose and for civil liberties, Joe Biden has the right answers. If we give him the chance, he’ll be the right nominee to win us back the White House, too.