Aid with strings
by
Javed Hafiz |
Kerry-Lugar Bill has been finally passed by the US Congress, albeit with some conditionalities added to its original draft. The bill triples US assistance to Pakistan, to $1.5 billion per annum for the next five years, extendable for another five years. This long-term loan on a nominal interest rate would be the highest assistance received by Pakistan from the United States and much of this, by obligation, will have to be spent on civilian projects to improve governance, agriculture, education and energy. The bill praises Pakistan’s pivotal role in the war against terror and calls for a long-term relationship to stabilise the civilian institutions and the Pakistani economy.
The bill, which now awaits presidential approval, to become law, is based on the ideas of Vice-President Joe Biden. Originally called Kerry-Biden Bill, it took the new name after the presidential election. The bill stayed with the US Congress for over a year where it had been thoroughly scrutinised. During this period, some conditions were added to the bill which has made it controversial in Pakistan. The legislation is supposedly aimed at winning the hearts and minds of Pakistani people and establishing a long-term relationship. It enjoyed bipartisan support and was passed unanimously in both the houses of the US Congress. However, this legislation may further alienate Pakistan for reasons discussed below.
Latest US surveys show that 80 per cent of Pakistanis oppose cooperation with the United States in the war on terror. Similarly, only 14 per cent of Americans have expressed positive opinions about Pakistan. This is not a happy situation for both countries. The annual expenditure on the war in Afghanistan is $60 billion, and the performance is dismal. Some Nato countries, present in Afghanistan, are already showing nervousness and having cold feet. All the foreign civilian experts and western military might could not ensure fair and credible presidential elections in Afghanistan. Heavy British troops’ presence in the Helmand province has not been able to stop poppy cultivation there. British casualties in the Afghan war have surpassed the number of British troops killed in Iraq.
On the other hand, the Pakistani forces on the western border, which have a similar numerical strength as Nato forces in Afghanistan, have done a much better job. The reason is that the Pakistani forces know their own terrain much better and also enjoy considerable support from the local population. On the other hand, the Nato forces in Afghanistan are considered occupation forces. The US and Nato forces know that this war cannot be won without Pakistan’s support.
Now coming to the conditions, those pertain to Pakistan’s consistent war effort against Al Qaeda and Taliban, holistic nuclear non-proliferation regime, dismantling of any terrorist networks in Pakistan. In this regard, two organisations and locations have specifically been mentioned. The last condition pertains to civil military relations. It makes it incumbent upon the Pakistani armed forces to accept civilian command. Coming from the United States, this looks strange as it has historically supported all military rulers from Ayub Khan to Zia-ul-Haq to Pervaiz Musharraf.
Anyway, it is never too late to realise a mistake. I personally feel that military rulers have done Pakistan much harm.
President Obama is yet to sign the bill into law and there is already a raging debate about it in Pakistan. The government claims it as a diplomatic achievement while the opposition considers it too intrusive, indeed humiliating. The argument is that the bill infringes upon Pakistan’s sovereignty to take decisions about its internal situation and policy on neighbouring countries. Two opinions, indeed two camps, have clearly emerged. “This is less an assistance programme than a treaty of surrender,” writes Ayaz Amir. Even if one discounts for the hyperbole style of Ayaz Amir, his opinion does reflect a widely held opinion in Pakistan. Diametrically opposite, the government argues that Pakistan has faced tougher condionalities in 1980s through the Pressler Amendment.
Kerry-Lugar Bill has the potential of increasing political polarisation in Pakistan. The ruling People’s Party may be further isolated. In order to clarify issues, the bill ought to be debated by the Pakistan’s parliament threadbare. The government stand on the bill should reflect the national views. Yes, Pakistan is cash-strapped and needs this development assistance badly but nothing is more important than national dignity. With the kind of mistrust, formally contained in this bill, this legislation may not be sustainable in the long run.
The bill does give the impression as if the United States considers Pakistan to be a delinquent juvenile. That is certainly not the case. Pakistan has sacrificed more in the war than all the Nato losses put together. Such perception, as contained in the bill, will further aggravate the negative feelings against the United States. Pakistan ought to be handled with lots of care, sensitivity and respect. On the other hand, the government and media in Pakistan should educate the common man that this bilateral relationship is very important. International relations should be kept away from emotional diatribes.
(Javed Hafiz is Pakistan’s former ambassador to the Sultanate)
|
Other comment for Javed Hafiz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NEWS UPDATES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
