Kerry Lugar Bill has now been presented and it certainly moves away from the ridiculous Howard Berman Bill that was presented to the House of Representatives. However, once again, we are seeing the doublespeak so aptly describes by fellow columnist Anjum Niaz. At the end of the day, what may emerge in the Congressional consensus is a mix of the two bills, and the final shape will depend on how effective the Indian lobby has been and how critical the US regards our national submission to Indian interests. Be that as it may, the Kerry Lugar Bill (KLB) itself is problematic, even though it appears angelic compared to the Berman Bill – although the amounts and time lines are similar - $1.5 billion per year authorised for five years and a similar amount advocated for the following five years! The KLB delinks security or military assistance from non-military assistance but has conditionalities attached to both. In terms of security, the assistance is on a year-by-year basis, and the US president has to certify that Pakistan's security forces – that is the military which effectively means the army – are making concerted efforts to prevent Al Qaeda and "other terrorist groups" from operating in Pakistani territory! Given how even the loss of over a thousand security personnel has failed to convince the US that our military is doing its best under trying circumstances, the US continues to put forward the mantra of "do more", such certification would put our security forces under US pressure and "control" for a decade at least. And for what? For weapons systems that we have done without adequately for many decades.
As for getting US training in counter terrorism, that is a laugh given how inadequate the US itself has proven to be – whether it was Vietnam, Latin America, Iraq or Afghanistan. There is also the required certification that the military is preventing Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan from where attacks against Afghanistan can be launched – as if the whole burden on preventing cross-border movement and attacks is the responsibility of the Pakistan army, not of the NATO forces or Afghan military! Once again, the US continues to focus on a military-centric approach and has a punitive policy towards the Pakistan military.The latter is reflected also in another requirement relating to security assistance: the US president has to certify that our security forces are not interfering in the political and judicial processes of Pakistan. While all Pakistanis wish to see this, is it the place of the US to dictate this as a conditionality? What has this got to do with military aid and fighting "terrorism"? To add further insult to the state of Pakistan, the US secretary of state, after consulting the secretary of defence and the director of national intelligence will also be submitting to Congress an annual report on the "progress" of Pakistan's security forces. The "progress" is not defined categorically so it could include demands for revelations of our nuclear assets locations, security systems and so on also.
Is our military so desperate for US weapons that we will compromise our nuclear assets? Already there is concern over the "sensitive" briefing allegedly given to US and some European diplomats relating to our nuclear assets. How far will we go just for dollars and some weapons systems that we do not really need? And what if "progress" also refers to cuts in our nuclear weapons' spending – something that the Zardari government has already begun to time "coincidentally" with his US visit, although some of us had written about this danger many months earlier!Then there is a very ominous phrase relating to the presidential evaluation and that is a reference to the roles of "Pakistan local, regional and national institutions". Does regional here offer an indirect intrusion of India somewhere or does it merely mean provincial institutions – and which institutions?Even with non-security or civilian assistance, there are conditionalities which are highly intrusive and relate to democracy, independent judiciary, rule of law and so on. All laudable, but why should we need US supervision or intervention financially on these counts? After all, on these issues, it is not money that is needed but political commitment and internal reforms which the senior judiciary has already initiated. Incidentally, on one count the US has understood the Pakistani penchant for bowing before dollars: the KLB also provides a regular $5 million for the US ambassador to Pakistan to provide "critical need development or humanitarian assistance" – an open-ended provision for buying loyalties and providing the US ambassador in Islamabad with more interventionist powers within Pakistan's domestic polity. As for the democracy agenda, what happens if the Pakistani people elect a group or party that is anathema to the US and its interests? Will they do with our democracy what they did to Allende and Chile and what they are doing to Hamas? As for rule of law, if the US was seriously interested in this, it would come clean on the "Disappeared People" issue and close Guantanamo Bay.
Ironically, Kerry while introducing the Bill, kept referring to the US positive experience during the earthquake when the US provided humanitarian assistance. But he has forgotten that it took many critiques in the Pakistani press for the NATO transport planes and helicopters present in Afghanistan to be galvanised into playing a humanitarian role – while resource-limited Cuba and our friend Turkey gave immediately and without any publicity-seeking dramas. The point that needs to be considered is: what are the long term costs of the US assistance to Pakistan and can we do without it? Certainly, if our leadership tightened its belt, cut out its foreign trips and perks and privileges, and actually governed effectively, our resources could be generated from within. Let the parliamentarians, most of who are economically prosperous, refuse to take their bloated pay and perks packages and redirect them towards education and health in their areas. Let the wheat and sugar mafias and smugglers be apprehended and so on. And let the military continue to rely on its indigenous weapons systems and nuclear deterrence. As for fighting terrorism and extremism, the military is only a last option with tremendous negative long term fallout – especially as long as we are seen to be doing US bidding or acting under US pressure.
We now face a threat not only from the militant extremists from within us, but also from the US. Yes, the writ of the state has to be asserted, but there has to be a political road map and a holistic approach not the military being sent in to fight in a political vacuum – simply because the US and its many apologists in Pakistan and in foreign-funded NGOs abroad, have decreed so. The US leadership with its multiple histrionics, beginning with Obama, has made its negative Pakistan agenda clear: it is eventually seeking control of our nuclear assets and we are playing into their hands. On the one hand, the militants are threatening the fabric of Pakistani society and on the other hand the US is creating violent dissensions within Pakistan not only amongst civil society but also between the military and civilian structures. It knows that unless it destroys the military institution, it cannot achieve its goal of targeting out nuclear assets. So, it is demanding a role for the military which will undermine its morale, bring it into conflict with its own people and create further unrest.
Bangladesh, the various military actions in Balochistan and the murder of Akbar Bugti should be important reminders of the costs of military operations against one's own people. We have terrorist courts and paramilitary forces – isolate the militants by providing security and justice for the locals and bringing the terrorists to face the law – not simply creating more IDPs. After all, how many will we kill through military power? Militaries are never a solution to political problems and where the civilian government has lost its writ it should declare an emergency and move to re-establish it. Of course, if our leaders actually took time off from their foreign forays to visit their own troubled areas, it could offer solace and support to those caught in the military-militant crossfire. As for the US agenda, what part is still not clear to our rulers?
