Comments on: 91¶ĚĘÓƵ Professor Urges Shift in Iraqi, Afghan Strategy /now/news/2011/emu-professor-urges-shift-in-iraqi-afghan-strategy/ News from the 91¶ĚĘÓƵ community. Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:30:34 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9 By: Ethan /now/news/2011/emu-professor-urges-shift-in-iraqi-afghan-strategy/#comment-300 Thu, 03 Feb 2011 03:18:10 +0000 http://emu.edu/now/news/?p=5565#comment-300 In reply to Lisa Schirch.

Well I am certainly a fan of your 3D Security Initiative, then!

I have only more recently become aware of (some of) the complexities of these and related issues, as well as our country’s consistent but very poor and selfish role in them. I’m excited that people such as yourself are finding ways to do something about it! It is so easy to feel helpless to change things that seem so huge and beyond our reach.

I truly wish the very best to you and to all the related endeavors of the your 3D group.

P.S. You should come out with some 3D Security Initiative glasses. That would be funny.

]]>
By: Lisa Schirch /now/news/2011/emu-professor-urges-shift-in-iraqi-afghan-strategy/#comment-113 Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:00:44 +0000 http://emu.edu/now/news/?p=5565#comment-113 Thanks for your comments on the article.

I agree with you and share your concern about USAID’s development practices. This too is a focus of the 3D Security Initiative – to make sure that development assistance is given directly to local organizations and ultimately about supporting their efforts rather than about further enriching Americans or aiming to support US political goals. That means less USAID funding for development contractors who major goal is not development, but winning costly contracts from USAID to “deliver” services to local people.

Much development assistance, even by NGOs, is not done in a way that truly fosters development and addresses poverty. Instead, it is carried out in a way that often undermines the efforts that local people make to improve their lives.

So thanks for noting your concerns here and taking time to ask for clarification.

]]>
By: Ethan /now/news/2011/emu-professor-urges-shift-in-iraqi-afghan-strategy/#comment-8 Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:48:16 +0000 http://emu.edu/now/news/?p=5565#comment-8 This is a great article! I’m so glad to hear that Prof. Schirch is engaged with the military community. Pacifism is not just some article of faith with no implications or practical foundation – it is based on common sense and mature experience (although it goes against our cultural assumptions) and has plenty of historical validation. We need people like Prof. Schirch to be working with others with different world views and showing in an integrated way how valuable a non-violent approach can be in foreign policy.

That said, is the US military suddenly going to become a nonviolent army of peace? Of course not. But if the military can learn from Prof. Schirch, if it can find ways to respect and encourage the humanity of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to encourage/support the work of individuals and groups to improve their own situation, then that is amazing. Any little bit that the military focuses more on empowering the local people, addressing poverty and the need for jobs, ethnic and religious conflict, and so on is a good and important step. Prof. Schirch’s meetings with the military and Afghani and Iraqi students may help some people within the military to think more about their approach and assumptions.

I am, however, very critical and skeptical about the national security strategy mentioned in the article: “Including all of the world’s poor in an expanding circle of development—and opportunity—is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of U.S. international policy.” Those are great words, but I fear they are just that. Words, and not actual priorities.

An example is USAID (US Agency for International Development), and also its work in Haiti. All following quotes and references are from the MCC Guide to Haiti Advocacy.

“USAID’s fundamental aim is to increase U.S. access to foreign markets. Its goal around the world is to ‘further America’s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of the developing world.’ This is primarily accomplished through making aid available under conditions favorable to U.S. companies, lobbying for tariffs favorable to the U.S., and supporting governments willing to endorse U.S. ideologies.” (pg. 13, paragraph 2)

Between 85-94% of US aid to Haiti supports US businesses and contractors. (pg 13-14) USAID proudly states that the vast majority of USAID aid goes back to US citizens in one way or another. Why go to such lengths to help other people while serving your own interests? If more of this money actually bolstered the Haitian economy (local agriculture, local construction, supporting the government instead of foreign NGOs, etc.) it would have a much more profound effect!

In fact, food aid to Haiti also undermines the local agricultural market, forcing prices down and making it harder for Haitian farmers to make a living. In the 1980s Haiti was largely self-sufficient in terms of food. Now it imports 70% of its food. (pg 13-14) This is not a consequence of natural disasters in Haiti, but of policy imposed on Haiti in return for aid – US subsidies that make imported food cheaper than locally bought food (and remember, labor in Haiti is cheap, so these are significant subsidies!)

There are lots of other sites and sources with this info (see my blog), but since this is a Mennonite site I figured MCC-based info might be appreciated.

]]>