WASHINGTON, March 1 (UPI) -- The UPI Think Tank wrap-up is a daily digest covering brief opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events and position statements released by various think tanks.
Center for Strategic and International Studies
WASHINGTON -- Counter-terrorism in Georgia: Pankisi problems arise from weak state; United States, Russia, Georgia work together
CSIS analysts made the following statements regarding U.S. aid to Georgia to fight terrorist groups in its Pankisi region:
*Celeste Wallander, director, CSIS Russia and Eurasia Program.
"The positive developments in U.S.-Russian relations since Sept. 11 have been due in large measure to common interests in and cooperation on counter-terrorism. Russian political and practical support for the U.S. campaign against al Qaida and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan were only the first step in this effort. It should come as no surprise that the United States takes seriously evidence of al Qaida presence in Georgia, and that offers of assistance to Georgia have followed. What we need now is a joint Russian-U.S.-Georgian process to decide how best to achieve the objective. Russia should not jump to the conclusion that the United States will send forces or use force; Georgia should not exploit the opportunity to play Russia and the United States off one another; and the United States should consider carefully the wide variety of options to achieve our common interests in defeating terrorist networks."
*Zeyno Baran, director, CSIS Caucasus Project.
"At the root of Georgia's problems with criminal and terrorist groups in Pankisi lies its weak state, which has been ineffective in combating the massive corruption in the country. In addition to U.S. assistance, Georgia also needs national unity more than ever now to remove the temptation for any external forces to further destabilize this fragile country. The initial Russian reaction to U.S. military training and equipping of Georgian forces is expectedly negative. But Russia will eventually realize that it is also in its interest to see Georgia once and for all clean up Pankisi, which has been a major security concern for Russia for several years."
CSIS notes that these are the views of the individuals cited, not of CSIS, which does not take policy positions.
The Cato institute
WASHINGTON -- President's call for Social Security private investment provides better opportunity for all Americans, Cato expert says.
At the White House National Summit on Retirement Savings conference, President Bush renewed his call for partial privatization of Social Security. In response to the president's remarks, Michael Tanner, director of the Cato Institute Project on Social Security Privatization, said:
"President Bush understands that Social Security's looming bankruptcy is not just a crisis, but an opportunity -- an opportunity to build a better retirement system for all Americans. The president also understands that the key to any successful Social Security reform is to allow young workers to privately invest at least a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes.
"Social Security reform is about more than just keeping social Security solvent. It is about providing younger workers with a better rate-of-return, making the system more fair for minorities and women, and allowing low-income workers to accumulate and own real financial assets. The president's remarks show that he understands these issues.
"Opponents of the president's proposals have an obligation to do more than criticize. If they have a proposal to reform Social Security, they should put them on the table so that they can be fairly compared and debated."
WASHINGTON -- If Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are the "axis of evil," why is Pakistan an ally?
By Leon Hadar
President George W. Bush has declared that the next phase of the anti-terrorism campaign would be aimed at pressing Iraq, Iran, and North Korea -- the so-called axis of evil -- not to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. He also stressed in his State of the Union Address that the war against terrorism would be grounded in a set of universal values, including the rule of law, religious freedom and respect for women.
Much of the commentary that followed Bush's speech raised questions about why he lumped together Baghdad, Teheran and Pyongyang, which, after all, have different political systems and divergent foreign policy goals. A more intriguing mystery, though, concerns a country that was missing from the list: Pakistan.
Islamabad should have been placed at the center of the "axis," not only because of its close ties to radical Muslim terrorist groups and its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, but because its anti-Western and militant Islamic orientation is the antithesis to the universal values that the Bush administration is supposedly promoting as part of its foreign policy.
But instead of being placed on President Bush's list of evil states, Pakistan is now topping America's "A List" of the anti-terrorism coalition. The garden-variety dictatorship in Baghdad, the reformist government in Teheran, and the detente-oriented North Korea are being marginalized and punished by Washington and compared to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. But Pakistan's military dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who brought an end to his nation's short democratic experience and has advanced Pakistan's nuclearization program, while promoting ties to radical Islamic groups at home and abroad, is being praised by U.S. officials for his "courage" and "vision." And he recently was a guest of honor at the White House.
Pakistan's government, led by an unreliable military clique that is assisting radical Islamic terrorist groups in Kashmir, pressing for a war with India, and presiding over a corrupt and mismanaged economy, has been a recipient of vast sums of U.S. military and financial aid.
One should recall that it was America's "friend" Pakistan that, through its military-religious nexus, led by its infamous intelligence services, provided the Taliban fighters with the military aid that helped bring them to power in Kabul in 1994 and create the anti-American terrorist state of Afghanistan.
At the same time, the "evil" Iran was a regional adversary of the Taliban regime and one of the leading backers of the Northern Alliance opposition forces. Moreover, despite Washington's hostile attitude and its efforts to isolate Iran diplomatically and economically, Tehran agreed to give indirect logistical support to the American military campaign in Afghanistan and cooperated with efforts to oust the Taliban.
Pakistan, on the other hand, joined the American-led coalition only after enormous U.S. diplomatic and military pressure and in exchange for increasing American aid. In fact, while the Iranians were helping their Northern Alliance allies in their war against the Taliban after Sept. 11, Pakistani military and intelligence services were assisting the losing Taliban fighters and evacuating thousands of them into Pakistan.
Although the Bush administration should certainly continue monitoring the efforts of Iraq, Iran and North Korea to acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction and should take every measure to prevent the transfer of such military technology to terrorists, it's important to remember that these three nations have agreed to open some of their weapons-production sites to international inspection. Most experts agree that it will take several years for Iraq and Iran to develop nuclear military capability and that neither those two countries nor North Korea have provided WMD technology to al Qaida or other terrorist networks.
If anything, the Bush administration's concern with nuclear proliferation and with the possible transfer of WMD to terrorist groups should make Pakistan -- a nuclear military power, whose military leaders and scientists are committed to the notion of an "Islamic Bomb," and who have maintained ties to the international network of radical Islamic groups, including al Qaida -- a focus of U.S. anti-proliferation and antiterrorism policies.
No, Pakistan shouldn't be branded as "evil" and subject to a campaign of diplomatic isolation and military confrontation that the Bush administration seems be directing against Iraq, Iran and North Korea. But neither should Pakistan be lauded as America's strategic ally in the war against terrorism and be the recipient of U.S. military and economic aid.
(Leon Hadar is a research fellow in foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.)
Institute for Public Accuracy
(The IPA is a nationwide consortium of policy researchers that seeks to broaden public discourse by gaining media access for experts whose perspectives are often overshadowed by major think tanks and other influential institutions.)
WASHINGTON--Energy: Cheney Documents, Senate Energy Plan, Bush Welfare Plan
*Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project.
"It is outrageous that the Department of Energy had to be taken to court to be forced to release the documents relating to Vice President Cheney's energy task force. We will look forward to the documents becoming public and seeing the role that energy corporations played in writing the energy legislation now being considered in Congress. Notwithstanding the administration's stonewalling and disregard for the public's right to know, it is clear that the Bush-Cheney energy plan was heavily influenced by fatcat energy industry tycoons, for fatcat energy tycoons. And the administration's proposals reflect a heavy dose of influence by former Enron Chairman Ken Lay. Unfortunately, the sweeping energy bill crafted by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman also mirrors many of the misguided energy policies that were announced last year in the Bush administration's energy plan. Even in the wake of the Enron fiasco, as politicians publicly sound the call for closer monitoring and oversight of the energy industry, the Senate bill would further deregulate energy markets and erode consumer protections."
*Mimi Abramovitz, professor at Hunter College School of Social Work and
author of the book "Under attack, fighting back: Women and welfare in the
United States," and the just-released report "In Jeopardy: The Impact of Welfare Reform on Non-Profit Agencies in New York City."
"President Bush's welfare plan will drive more women and children into poverty. Many women left welfare during the economic boom, but most could not make ends meet -- given their low wages and part-time work. Increasing the work requirements, as Bush has proposed, will only make matters worse ... Our recent study, based on interviews with senior staff at 107 New York non-profit agencies, found a major unforeseen consequence of welfare reform: it has increased the financial and emotional stress of low-income families and made it more difficult for non-profit social service agencies to address their needs. Unable to reduce the welfare rolls further through tough work rules, the administration has decided to spend scarce welfare dollars to promote marriage by adding motivational pre-marital counseling to the mostly ineffective welfare-to-work programs--as if people simply need to be convinced of the value of marriage."
National Center for Public Policy Research
CHICAGO -- Ten second response: Teamsters union claims environmentalist support for ANWR oil exploration
By Tom Randall
Background: The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a strong supporter of President Bush's energy plan, issued a news release dated Feb. 26, 2002, claiming the plan to drill in ANWR has the support of environmentalists with past or current affiliations with the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy of Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
The Teamsters quote Doug Wheeler, former executive director of the Sierra Club, as saying, "The exploration and development of energy resources in the United States is governed by the world's most stringent environmental constraints, and to force development elsewhere is to accept the inevitability of less rigorous oversight."
Ten-second Response: Responsible environmentalists, if they are being honest with themselves, know that U.S. oil exploration is environmentally friendly.
Thirty-second Response: When former Sierra Club Executive Director Doug Wheeler says that the alternative to oil exploration in the U.S. is to force exploration to be done in other countries, under less environmentally safe standards, he is absolutely right. Even former President Clinton's Department of Energy agreed and supported exploration in Alaska.
(Tom Randall is the director of the John P. McGovern, M.D. Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs at the National Center for Public Policy Research.)
