I agree most with three. An external party can do miracles when it comes to getting parties to sit down at the table and negotiate. No guarantees for success, but if it is possible to disarm the Kashmir situation it is worth a shot. Then again Pakistan and India uses each other for mutual self-definition so it is quite possible that there is no will to get a peace agreement on terms both sides can agree to. The US is not the only state that constantly needs an enemy to motivate its citizen into paying a bloated military.
I agree partly with two. Partly because any program launched by the US for free trade with Pakistan is likely to end up mostly benefitting american companies and the pakistani elite. Judging from previous experience, that is.
One I agree with, but for different reasons. I think cutting the pakistani military off subsidise will rapidly lead to a decline of US influence and a pakistani foreign policy more in line with the popular sentiment in Pakistan. No more US transports to Afghanistan, as the other routes are Iran, Russia, China or insufficient roads through Kaukasus and the 'stans.
And four I agree with, though I suspect for different reasons and I suspect my program would look much different then Kristofs.
I understand why it tears you up, but as I see it we the people do not control our governements. When it comes to foreign policy states do not act altruisticly. Foreigners do not vote, and thus have no leverage. The best we can hope for is enlightened selfinterest. Like when the pillage of western Germany stopped because the US establishment figured out that it made communism look like a good alternative.
That we do not control our governments does not mean that we do not have influence. Voting matters, targeted protests and strikes often matters more, because it hurts more.
So we can not us our governments to build up stuff, because that takes a degree of control we do not have. We can try to stop them from blowing stuff up and assisting in pillage. Therefore I propose "First do no harm" as foreign policy principle.
Oh, and one thing we can do to make matters better for those suffering under brutal conditions is pushing for liberal asylum rules. The US could let the million or so (or is it millions?) displaced by the war in Iraq flee to the US. That would improve the situation for the refugees, as well as decreasing the strain on iraqi society. It won't, but it could. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
