Kerry-Lugar Bill

The Kerry-Lugar fiasco
Shamshad Ahmad
October 19, 2009

The Kerry-Lugar Bill was supposed to bring a “larger conceptual framework” and mutuality content to the “transactional” US-Pakistan relationship. It has done just the opposite. There has been a serious backlash in Pakistan over the intrusive conditionalities attached to US military aid which are seen by the people at large and major civil and military stakeholders in the country’s power structure as compromising national sovereignty.
The bill does no good to the US-Pakistan relationship which already has had a troubled history. Its original author, Joe Biden, while running for president in November 2007, had envisioned a new policy for Pakistan advocating the need for new dynamics in the US-Pakistan relationship with greater mutuality content and people-centred socio-economic development. His strategy envisaged moving from an issue-specific relationship to a normal, functional relationship with Pakistan.
Last year in July, Senator Joe Biden presented a bipartisan bill in the Senate involving an annual aid package of $1.5 billion for five years renewable for another five years, with an additional $1 billion as “democracy dividend,” and an appropriate “performance-based” military assistance which was to be subjected to rigorous oversight and accountability. It was a well-meaning initiative designed to strengthen democracy in Pakistan.
After the US presidential election last year, the Biden-Lugar bill became the Kerry-Lugar Bill with several changes in its content and wording. The provision on non-security assistance remained the same but the idea of a democracy dividend disappeared. Obviously the democratic credentials of the post-Musharraf NRO-based government in Islamabad were known to the US Congress. Under Section 203, some badly worded certification conditionalities were attached to the provision for military assistance to Pakistan.
There is nothing unusual with aid-related conditionalities. In fact, the very concept of foreign aid is predicated on mutually convergent obligations of donor and recipient countries inherent in their political, economic, military, moral, social and now strategic priorities. Even the famous Marshall Plan had its conditionalities to ensure the requisite oversight and accountability. But even in term of conditionalities, the donor and recipient always do lot of homework to evolve the needed convergence of mutual obligations.
In this particular case, it seems, no such homework was done. The bill became a crisis for both the PPP government and US policy makers. It was a classic example of flawed decision-making on both sides. On the Pakistani side, it was a matter of poor judgment of its own national mood and country’s vital interests. The major civilian and military stakeholders in the country, including the parliament, opposition and the army were either kept in the dark or were misinformed about the contents of the bill.
On the American side, it was yet another blatant example of closing their eyes to history, playing games with Pakistan’s weak and crumbling democracy, exploiting its vulnerable leadership, and extremely poor public diplomacy in the face of growing anti-Americanism. Joe Biden’s realistic approach for a new policy towards Pakistan was woefully distorted and once again circumscribed to Washington’s narrowly based and vaguely defined issue-specific priorities.
The major problem with the Kerry-Lugar Bill, now formally known as the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, is in its provisions on security-related assistance involving pre-disbursement certifications by the US Secretary of State. The first and perhaps the most ominously sensitive certification clause is the one warranting Pakistan’s continued cooperation “on the dismantling of nuclear weapon-related supplier networks and providing relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks.”
The other certification pertained to Pakistan’s commitment to “combating terrorist groups, ceasing support, including by any elements within Pakistan military or its intelligence agency to extremists and terrorist groups, preventing Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups from operating in its territory or launching cross-border attacks into neighbouring countries and dismantling of terrorist operation bases on its soil including Quetta and Muridke.” Ironically, Pakistan is already doing all these things and daily paying a heavy price.
Perhaps the most incredulous certification requirement is the one to assure the Congress that Pakistan’s “security forces are not materially and substantially subverting the political or judicial processes of the country.” This is a joke of the highest order and perhaps an opportunity for agonising soul-searching in Washington to find who has really been “subverting the constitutional, political or judicial processes” in this benighted country.
Ironically, Section 302 (the murderous section 302 in Pakistan’s legal parlance) on semi-annual “monitoring reports” also calls for “an assessment of the extent to which the Government of Pakistan exercises effective civilian control of the military, including a description of the extent to which civilian executive leaders and parliament exercise oversight, and approval of military budgets, chain of command, process of promotion for senior military leaders, civilian involvement in strategic guidance and planning, and military involvement in civil administration.”
This assessment, if carried out objectively, would eventually be an indictment of our civilian leadership itself for lacking the “credibility and competence” in exercising the purported “civilian control” over the military and for ineffective and poor “strategic guidance and planning.” The assessment will hopefully not omit the extent to which our elected rulers and entities are observing the sanctity of constitutional supremacy and upholding political or judicial processes in the country.
Unfortunately, in our political realm, it happens to be our current civilian leadership which is now flouting democratic norms by holding on to a dictator’s legacy, the notorious the Seventeenth Amendment. The military after Musharraf’s ouster is playing by the rules. We now have an independent judiciary. If the civilian leadership remains truthful to the Constitution, the military will have no excuse to come back. The final onus thus now rests with our civilian rulers and representatives.
The very first instance of the commitment of our rulers to democratic norms is the contempt shown to the parliament on the question of building a “national response” to the issues of our legitimate concern in the Kerry-Lugar Bill. Foreign Minister Qureshi rushed post-haste to Washington without taking the parliament into confidence and reached an understanding based on a clarification from the co-authors of the bill, which has no legal status or effect.
All this notwithstanding, the amount involved in this aid package is not really big money. We can do without it. A little more efficient management of our government can easily save us twice this amount in reduced government spending and giving up of the Marco Polo culture by our leaders. The best thing would have been to thank the US for its generosity and concern for Pakistan’s democracy and development, and tell them that our people are not ready to accept any conditional aid.
Instead of giving our country as ransom, we should be fixing the fundamentals of our governance and choosing to live our own lives as an independent and self-reliant nation, free from want and ignorance and raising our children with honour and dignity, free from the fear of violence, oppression and injustice. Let us focus on domestic resource mobilization and reduce government spending. We are a food-growing country. Let’s grow food for our own people. Give up the Marco Polo culture. No more blind faith in the friends of Pakistan – let us be our own friends.
This warrants us to come out of the denial mode and agree that like India, we can also be self-reliant. Yes, we can do it, remember? After all, Obama in his inaugural address, speaking of the daunting challenges to his administration, had also said: “Yes, we can do it.”
Courtesy: The News
-----------------------------
Sovereignty or self-perpetuation?
Fayyaz Ali Khan
October 15, 2009

Amazingly, the people of Pakistan are being convinced to reject a US financial assistance bill which, for the first time in our history intends to help the people and bar the government from diverting these funds to the military, which many view as being the main hindrance to democracy in the country.
Why do we call it dictation when the bill bars the government from diverting these funds to the military? Isn't it a fact that so far whatever foreign aid has been given to Pakistan, most of it has been consumed by the military establishment? Is it not a fact that the sons of all the previous dictators, who all belonged to the middle or lower middle classes of our society, are today some of the richest in this country? I think we have "eaten enough grass" and the time has come to inject some nutrients in to the drained veins of the hapless masses.
Why is it being portrayed as meddling in our internal affairs when the bill, under the heading, purpose of assistance, says, "to help strengthen the institutions of democratic governance and promote control of military institutions by a democratically elected civilian government"? Or when it states, under limitations on certain assistance, "the security forces of Pakistan are not materially and substantially subverting the political or judicial processes in Pakistan"? Is it not what our Constitution says? Or are we forgetting Chaudhry Shujaat's famous utterances that it takes only one jeep and a truck to bring about regime change in this country?
Why are we raising a ruckus over the Americans asking us not to get involved in nuclear proliferation or to stop supporting networks involved in proliferation activities given that it has been proven that certain Pakistani individuals were indeed involved in such activities? Also, what is so wrong with the certification requirement in the bill that the government of Pakistan prevent Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups, such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, from operating within the territory of Pakistan? That this also include the prevention of cross-border attacks in to neighbouring countries, the closure of terrorist training camps in FATA, and the dismantling of terrorism infrastructure in other parts of the country? If we oppose the bill what signal are sending to the rest of the world? That we are involved in nuclear proliferation and are abetting terrorism overseas?
In fact it would be fair to say that most of the anti-KL bill critics are advocating the adoption of a position that runs counter to our national interest. Also, it would be equally fair to assume that most of the critics will not have read the bill in its entirety and are also unaware of the fact that the certification clauses included in it are usual for most aid bills that the US legislature passes.
Since we say that we are responsible nation and not involved in proliferation activities or that we provide help to terrorist groups operating from our soil to carry out attacks in other countries, there should be little reason for us to oppose Kerry-Lugar. Besides, let us not forget that during the Afghan war, in return for US funding, we were supposed to cap our nuclear programme and that the US president then too was required to certify every year that this was being done. And despite that we managed to develop our nuclear deterrence.
We are projecting ourselves as a nation whose policies, instead of interests, are governed by emotions. Also, in this emotional frenzy, we fail to see that for a change – and this is perhaps a first – the aid that we receive will not go towards purchasing tanks or warplanes but towards addressing poverty, towards building schools, hospitals, improving access to clean drinking water, and on socio-economic development in general.
It is good to see parliament and the civil society debate and discuss our relationship with the US vis-à-vis the conditions attached to Kerry-Lugar. Having said that, it needs to be pointed out that the majority of criticism of the bill is coming from quarters who are known to be supporters, beneficiaries and perpetuators of the rule of the men in khaki. Since the birth of our country, our sovereignty has been time and again breached from within and not outside. I wish the Americans had translated the bill into Urdu and other regional languages so that the people could read it for themselves and see that for a change we are getting foreign aid with strings whose objective seems to be to foster socio-economic development.
The writer is a development consultant based in Peshawar. Email: fayyazalikhan@ yahoo.com
Courtesy: The News
--------------------------
Transformation?
By Dr Farrukh Saleem

February 6, 2009: Senator Kerry, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said: "In my conversations with Admiral Mullen… there is a sense of some transformation -- of a willingness to engage in some transformation. I also find that both General Pasha and General Kayani are likewise committed."
April 17: Within 71 days of Kerry's statement, Friends of Democratic Pakistan, upon US prodding, pledged $5.28 billion.
June 11: Within 125 days of Kerry's statement, the US House of Representatives passed The Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act authorising $1.5 billion per fiscal year for non-military assistance to Pakistan plus $300 million for FY2010 and such funds as may be necessary for 'Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund' plus $300 million in Foreign Military Financing.
June 24: With 138 days of Kerry's statement, the US Senate passed The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act authorising $1.5 billion per fiscal year for non-military assistance to Pakistan.
June 2009: Congressional conferees authorised $1 billion for coalition support fund reimbursements (Pakistan receives around 80 per cent of the total) plus $896 million for embassy expansion plus $539 million in Economic Support Funds.
July 24: Syed Saleem Shahzad, Asia Times Online's bureau chief in Islamabad, one of Pakistan's most perceptive journalists, wrote: "The seamless friendship between… Admiral Mullen and General Kayani has cemented the relationship between the military establishments of the two countries to levels not seen since the 1950s… The result is that Islamabad and Washington are in a position to implement coordinated, long-term policies in the region, which include action against militants, moves to improve ties between Pakistan and India, especially their dispute over divided Kashmir…"
July 30: Syed Saleem Shahzad wrote: "Intense US efforts and assurances have put Pakistan and India on track to renew their dialogue process over key contentious issues, such as divided Kashmir. An important upshot of this is that Islamabad has begun a crackdown on jihadi assets…"
August 5: Within 169 days of Kerry's statement and within 45 days of Saleem Shahzad's article, a US unmanned aerial vehicle fired two air-to-surface Hellfire missiles that killed Baitullah.
August 7: Within 171 days of Kerry's statement, the IMF increased its financial support to $11.3 billion.
August 10: Within 10 days of Saleem Shahzad's article, India's Ministry of Home Affairs began withdrawing four battalions of the Central Reserve Police Force from the border.
August 12: Within 180 days of Kerry's statement, the Ministry of Defence told The News that "32 officers have been retired and others will be fired within the next few months in government efforts to streamline the ISI."
August 18: Lieutenant-General Nadeem told Reuters, "The Pakistan army was short of equipment…" The same day, Holbrooke assured that the US shall "expedite delivery of equipment requested by the Pakistani army."
For the record, within days of Kerry's February 6 statement, US drones shifted focus to the anti-Pakistan Taliban in South Waziristan. Since February 6, with an average of one strike a week, South Waziristan has been hit 23 times; areas controlled by Baitullah have been hit 15 times. For the record, Mian Habib-ur-Rehman of Harkat died in police custody and Shah Abdul Aziz of Jaish was sent to Adiala. Qari Saifullah was arrested on August 17 and Maulvi Omar the following day.
Our strategic thinkers have long considered home-grown terrorists as tourists with guns. Are they now shifting their sail with the wind? Or, are they actually turning on their jihadi assets? Kerry seems convinced that a 'transformation' is underway. And, Kerry may only be older than I am by a day but he is wiser than I am by a year.
Aug 23,2009
Courtesy: The News
-------------------------------------
The Kerry-Lugar debate
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Zafar Hilaly

Imagine the Americans, of all people, destabilising Pakistan; which is what Congress has done by acting petulantly and adding intrusive, unenforceable and gratuitously offensive conditions to Kerry-Lugar. Why? Because their favourite dictator played fast and loose with the money gifted to him by Bush, leaving America $13 billion poorer with nothing to show for it. The conditions are in place also because the Congress, reluctant to blame the poor performance of the military in Afghanistan, needs a scapegoat; someone to vent their anger on, to explain why Osama is still free, why Hikmatyar and Haqqani are gathering recruits, why Karzai, their hand-picked overlord of Afghanistan turned is a brazen vote thief and why Americans continue to die in Afghanistan in increasing numbers.
But tempting as it was to blame and humiliate Pakistan, viewed by many in the Congress as a reluctant, inefficient, fickle even duplicitous ally, the latter should have resisted the temptation – simply because alienating Pakistan is a self-defeating exercise which would prove as disastrous for America as much as for the stability and security of the region as a whole. Sadly, an irate Congress, goaded by the many lobbies that have a claim on the voting preferences of Congressmen and, one suspects, some inexplicably poor handling by appointees of the Zardari government, coalesced to produce a mega public relations disaster.
Kerry Lugar may have been drafted to ensure that America's money, all of $1.5 million annually (amounting to nine hours worth of expenditure that is incurred by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan) will not be lost but in the process America has jeopardised something worth much more, and that is not only the little remaining goodwill that existed for her in Pakistan, but, more importantly, the prospects of their staunch ally, Mr Zardari. Eventually, the harm done to the notion that democracy is the best form of government for Pakistan may prove to be the most damaging outcome inflicted by the Congress. In fact, Mark Twain once wrote about the members of the Congress: "Reader, suppose you were an idiot; and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself."
That is not to say that the Zardari government, which was badly let down by whoever are its advisers, will fall. It will not, hopefully. But the little recovery that Mr Zardari's standing seemed to be making in the polls, from the depths to which public regard for him had plunged, after his disastrous volte face on the restoration of the CJ, has evaporated. Time, if it ever was, is no longer on the side of Mr Zardari.
Notwithstanding the provocation, in the debate outside the National Assembly unfortunately, not for the first time, instinct and emotion has prevailed over common sense and considered judgement. Patriotism in Pakistan is not only the last resort of the scoundrel but the first bolt hole of the hypocrite. Of course, when the TV anchors took over the story the facts too became extinct.
Actually, there are only two conditions in the Kerry-Lugar Bill that are glaringly offensive; the others do not deserve the hysterical attention they received. In brief, Kerry Lugar offers Pakistan much needed assistance in the civil and military sphere over an extended period of time, in the hope that, in return, Pakistan will abide by her own laws regarding non-proliferation, forbidding the use of her territory by extremists, dismantling of such terror groups that remain and that all political players on the national scene abide by Pakistan's own constitution which forbids military takeovers and vests all authority, including matters concerning the nations defence, in the hands of a elected civilian government. However, the clause relating to the appointments and promotions in the military are fatuous and anyway impossible to monitor.
Besides, Pakistan is not bound by the conditions laid down by Congress nor by accepting the money is Pakistan accepting the conditionalities. That is merely Congress informing the administration of what it desires and what the latter should be looking out for when submitting its periodic report to Congress on the security related portion of the bill. Lest the administration still feels constrained and it is in the national interest of the US, Congress has allowed the President a free hand to waive all the conditions. Of one thing we can be sure, it will never be in the national interest of the United States to shun Pakistan's effective cooperation in the battle against terrorism.
Actually, what is most surprising about Kerry-Lugar is the gullibility of Congress. Imagine believing that when it comes to the crunch Pakistan will not act in her own interest just because Congress will be upset, or because a mere billion dollars (two to three per cent of the annual national budget) will not be available.
When has Pakistan not acted in accordance with her own wishes? Pakistan befriended China (1960) even though America had branded China as an international leper; Pakistan went to war with India twice (1965 and 1971) without caring what America might think, feel or do; Kissinger's threat (1975) that America would make a "horrible example" of Pakistan was brushed off as just so much hot air as Pakistan proceeded apace with her nuclear weapon programme; Pakistan exploded a nuclear device (1998) despite the repeated entreaties of an American President; Pakistan's nuclear scientists stole (and sadly sold) nuclear secrets notwithstanding American strictures to the contrary; even Musharraf, the supine Commando, took the money offered by Bush (2001-2008) thumbed his nose at the US and did with it what he wished; he even thought nothing of starting a war with India (1999) by capturing their defences in Kargil; earlier Pakistan said no to America's request to despatch forces to Vietnam (1970) and subsequently Iraq (2003).
The list of instances where we did, and do, what suits us is long. Like America, we too have always chosen to be faithful to America in our own way. Why then suddenly do our super patriots believe we will act differently after Kerry-Lugar?
Of course there are defects in the bill. It is a crassly crude method of taking to task the democratic dispensation that exists today for the follies of several dictators whom they supported and propped up. Besides, the Americans cannot draw up an indictment against a whole people or insult them merely to register their sense of hurt at the manner their money or interests had been handled by an earlier discredited coterie. For the Americans to shout "thief" today and start taking precautions when they were aware of the robbery years ago and chose to do nothing is knavish not merely foolish.
Nevertheless, we cannot let sentiment override national interest. America's support is important for a host of reasons and especially so when terrorists bent on taking over Pakistan have to be thwarted. There will be time enough, once this threat is eliminated, for point scoring and recrimination. Neither America nor Pakistan can afford to wreck cooperation forged over a difficult decade just to indulge their pique, or an irate Congress, that seems to have lost its marbles. A way out has to be found and lessons learnt.
Courtesy: The News
------------------------------
Winning hearts, avoiding waste
Monday, October 12, 2009
Abid Hasan
Finally the much awaited Kerry-Lugar Bill has been approved by the US Congress. And what was being heralded as a new chapter in the bumpy Pakistan-US relationship has, unfortunately, started off on an awful note. Instead of the US getting kudos for providing Pakistan with billions of dollars at a time when the former is going through its worst economic crisis, the US is being vilified in an environment which was anti-American to begin with. So what should it do now?
First, it must do quick damage control with regard to the conditionalities related to security assistance, which are seen by most — other than the government – as intrusive and insulting to a sovereign state. Even if the detractors are wrong, it is not the reality but the perception that is driving this sentiment and widening the trust deficit. Surely, it is not in the interest of the US to start a new relationship on a sour note. The vast majority of Pakistanis fully subscribe to the letter and spirit of the conditionalities, and they expect their parliament and government to implement these. Rather than imposing these as conditions, it would be better to include them in the preamble of the bill as stated policy of the Pakistan Government and as expectations of the US from us.
Second, the bill should include, in the preamble, broad principles and specific actions with respect to good governance including (i) establishing a strong and independent anti-corruption institution; (ii) strong and independent Election Commission; (iii) effective laws and mechanisms to minimise abuse of office by holders of public office, especially parliamentarians, ministers, judges and senior civil and military officials. An important element of this would be independent audit of tax and wealth returns filed by these public office holders; (iv) effective transparency and oversight of public procurement. Although the inclusion of such clauses in the bill would make the political and civil/military elite nervous, these are absolutely critical for sustaining democracy and development and for effective use of Pakistani ( and US ) taxpayers’ money. US’s seeming indifference to quality of governance and corruption will be perceived as badly by ordinary folks as the perception that US supports military rule.
Third, the US needs to make sure that the billions of dollars that it spends do make a difference in the lives of millions of ordinary people. Here, the US must incorporate the following two key lessons of development history while finalising the use of its funds: (i) aid only improves public services for the poor when good governance is in place in the recipient country. The US must recognise that bad governance leads to bad results and big money attracts big crooks; (ii) aid needs to be strategic and selective. If it tries to fix all public services, the managerial and financial resources will be spread too thin and will not have any discernable impact.
The government is urging USAID to channel its funds through government institutions, not because of the conviction that this will lead to improvements in social and human development indictors, but because it wants to have its hands and feet in the money bag. Where the quality of governance is good, using government institutions would be the right thing to do. However, in Pakistan’s context, using government institutions runs the high risk of aid being wasted and pocketed. The example of billions of aid dollars poured into the Social Action Programme during the 90s should be an eye opener for the USAID. For the most part, all Pakistan was left with after 10 years was thousands of ghost schools, ghost BHUs, and ghost teachers and health workers, and little, if any, improvement in the social indicators. USAID will contribute to the graveyard of good intentions if it falls into the trap of using government institutions under the present circumstances, eerily resembling the 90s. USAID should leave the fixing of dysfunctional government institutions to the government itself – donors simply cannot fix the deep-seated poor governance and policies.
Moreover, the amount — $1.5 billion — while significant, is no more than 15 per cent of the annual government expenditures in the long list of activities included in the Kerry-Lugar Bill. Hence, if USAID is allocated to all these activities, funds will be spread thin and unlikely to have any noticeable impact so it is important to be strategic, selective and hard-nosed in the allocation of aid funds.
Taking into account the lessons of development history and governance realities on the ground, the following could be key elements of a strategic and selective strategy to effectively use billions of dollars and win the hearts and minds of millions of ordinary Pakistanis.
In case of education, allocation of $3-4 billion would be required for the following activities; (i) a stipend programme for all middle/secondary school girls in government schools and low-fee well governed private schools, with the stipend varying by district and grade — higher for girls in districts with low enrollment, and lower for lower grades. Such a nation-wide programme, which has been successfully implemented in Bangladesh and many developing countries, could increase the girls’ enrollment, provide an incentive to poor families to keep girls in school all the way through secondary school and increase the incomes of poor families; (ii) a new high quality secondary school, one each for boys and girls in each tehsil and a high quality university (like LUMS) in each district where only students from government schools would be allowed to enroll. Each school and university would be an independent legal entity, governed by a board comprising civil society leaders, nazim and EDO Education; (iii) an endowment fund to fully fund the operational costs of the above schools and universities for 25-30 years after which they would be handed over to government or local philanthropists.
In case of health, a similar allocation of $3-4 billion would be required to establish; (i) a well functioning health system comprising first level/emergency care facility in each tehsil and a modern hospital in each district. Each of these facilities would be independent entities with their own boards and have features; (ii) an endowment fund to fully fund the operational costs of these facilities for 25-30 years, after which they would be handed over to government or local philanthropists.
Operating in the business-as-usual mode will be a sure kiss of waste. The US will neither achieve the human development goals, nor its goals to establish a new chapter in its relationship with the government and people of Pakistan. Moreover, Pakistan may be perceived as corrupt and wasteful when US taxpayers see limited impact on the ground in 10 years. Clearly, the proposed way of spending USAID funds would not make government functionaries of the day very happy for it would rob them of the opportunity to siphon off aid as all previous governments have done. A programme along the above lines would ensure effective use of USAID funds and would benefit millions of ordinary Pakistanis. It would also dot the Pakistani landscape with thousands of visible “islands of excellence for the poor”, continuously reminding the people of US’s contributions to our country for nation building.
Courtesy: The News
---------------------------------
Pakistan Gets Billions, But What About Scrutiny?
By:Saad Khan

The Pakistani government must be happy now as they are able to get billions of dollars in aid both from the United States and the international community of donors.The US Senate approved the Kerry Lugar bill that will allow the disbursement of $7.5 billion dollars in civilian aid over the course of five years.The aid roughly translates to $1.5 billion a year.The Zardari government as expected has welcomed this aid though they are not satisfied with just $7.5 billion they want billions more and are expecting another aid package from the US.Additionally they are also looking to their 'friends' in the Friends of Democratic Pakistan (FoDP) a group created in September 2008 to help the nascent Pakistani democratic government to tackle extremist elements.President Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown participated in a recent meeting of the group on September 24th.Zardari was also in attendance.
The Brown government has pledged 50 million Pounds in assistance to Pakistan.Other members of the group have also pledged some help in this regard.Major donors to the FoDP include the US UK Saudi Arabia Turkey UAE Japan and the Asian Development Bank.They initially pledged $5.1 billion in aid during a conference in Tokyo and the recent pledges represent a reassurance from the donors that they are eager to bring Pakistan out of its financial crisis.But do they need to do this while their own economies are badly suffering? This is a valid question being asked by Americans as their country is donating the largest chunk of money to Pakistan.Critics also cite the incompetent governance and widespread corruption in Pakistan which includes charges of financial embezzlement against Zardari (he was known as Mr.10% for requesting that amount as a commission on every deal).Nawaz Sharif another popular leader of Pakistan and now the main opposition leader was also accused of corruption during his two time premiership.
A recent report by Transparency International has raised serious questions about the competency of the Pakistani government.While financial embezzlement is not a new thing in Pakistan and the Pakistani government would be ready to enjoy the great 'financial feast' offered by the US American taxpayers might not be ready to accept this deal.Although there is news about tight scrutiny of the aid package the US government needs to ensure that the aid goes to the right people and not to the corrupt government agencies or fake non governmental organizations.The case of Pakistan is a complex one and needs international attention.If the US wants to gain a positive feeling among common Pakistanis it has to ensure direct aid to the masses instead of spending taxpayer money on corrupt government agencies.The importance of scrutiny and accountability has increased further as donor countries are facing deep recessions.The aid is good but needs to be spent thoughtfully on the right organizations.Only then can the US government achieve some of its strategic goals in the region.
Courtesy: huffingtonpost
-----------------------------------
Kerry-Lugar
By Dr Farrukh Saleem

Democrat Barack Obama was elected president of the US by 69,456,897 American voters. Democrat John Kerry was elected US senator from Massachusetts. Republican Richard Lugar was elected US senator from Indiana. Obama swore to "faithfully execute the Office of the President of the US" and to the best of his ability "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the US". Senators Kerry and Lugar swore that they would "support and defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic…" The president receives $193,400 per year to "faithfully execute the Office of the President of the US" and each senator gets an annual salary of $174,000 for defending the "Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic…"
Make no mistake, the Kerry-Lugar Bill is to safeguard and protect the interests of the US. The authors of the bill along with each and every mover of the bill is under legal obligation to 'preserve, protect and defend' the interests of the Untied States. Lo and behold! Pak-US interests can converge.
Q1. What are the conditionalities? Answer: No "security-related assistance may be provided… until the secretary of state… makes the certification (sec 203)." Amazingly, $750 million per year worth of non-security-related assistance has no condition and the condition for the other $750 million per year is that the president's special representative shall certify that Pakistan is making "reasonable progress" as per the Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report. Q2. Does Kerry-Lugar compromise Pakistan's sovereignty? Answer: Kerry-Lugar was passed in late-September. Pakistan's sovereignty was compromised on June 13, 2009, when our minister of state for finance declared Pakistan's resources to be Rs1.78 trillion while expenditures were estimated at Rs2.46 trillion. The very day that our National Assembly admitted that we would be soliciting charity to fill the Rs700 billion deficit our sovereignty was compromised. Pakistan's sovereignty was compromised further on July 27 when our minister for commerce announcing Pakistan's trade policy had set our export target at $18.8 billion (our import bill for 2007-08 was $35.4 billion). The very day that our very own minister declared that we would be asking for alms to fill the $16.6 billion trade deficit our sovereignty was compromised.
Q3: What does Kerry-Lugar say about Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad? Answer: The government of Pakistan should make progress on "preventing Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad from operating in the territory of Pakistan…" For the record, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad were both banned by the government of Pakistan in 2002. Q4: What does Kerry-Lugar say about our nuclear infrastructure? Answer: Three things: one, Pakistan shall "prevent proliferation of nuclear-related material and expertise". Two, that US assistance should not be directed to the expansion of nuclear stockpile. Three, Pakistan shall "dismantle supplier networks relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapons-related materials." We should not have any problem with the first two; it is really not in our interest to be the source of proliferation and the donor certainly has the right to impose restrictions on where his money cannot be spent. Yes, number three could be problematic as we are in an arms race with India.
Q5: What does Kerry-Lugar say about India? Answer: "It is critical to Pakistan's long-term prosperity and security to strengthen regional relationships among India, Pakistan and Afghanistan". Q6: What does Kerry-Lugar say about Quetta and Muridke? Answer: The government of Pakistan shall make progress in "dismantling terrorist bases of operations in other parts of the country, including Quetta and Muridke…"
On the brighter side of things, beggars can never be bankrupts and beggars shall fear no rebellion.
04 Oct 2009
Courtesy: The News
-----------------------------------
Kerry-Lugar — a bitter pill
Monday, October 12, 2009
Malik Amin Aslam

Over the years, Pakistan’s relationship with the US has been anything but stable. It has wildly oscillated from an awkward mutual dependence and inescapable reliance to being hindered with mistrust. Right from inception, it has been a continuous roller coaster ride which has witnessed endearing periods of the Afghan War, the current war against terrorism leading to Pakistan’s acceptance as a non-NATO ally in 2004 and the much acclaimed US disaster relief efforts during the 2005 earthquake. At the same time, it has endured the much ostracised, US indifference in the 1971 war with India, the Carter Aid suspension in 1979, biting Pressler Amendments in 1985, sudden Bush aid suspension in 1990, unfulfilled F-16s delivery and the biased Indian nuclear deal of 2007.
In this fluctuating backdrop, the Kerry-Lugar Enhanced Partnership Act of 2009 was formulated to stabilise and alter this transactional relationship. The genesis and subsequent shaping of the bill makes for a very interesting analysis.
Without a doubt, the chief architect and leading advocate of this long-term engagement with Pakistan is Joe Biden, the current US Vice-President and former head of the Senate foreign relations committee. In the US, he has long been recognised as one of the leading experts on Pakistan and it did not come as a surprise when he articulated a fresh and new approach to Pakistan in a defining speech at the Centre for US Global Engagement in 2007. This was heralded as a well-intentioned call to alter the US-Pakistan association. The intended shift was premised on four pillars: the tripling of Non-security aid to $1.5 billion/annum while ensuring that it is untied and unconditional; linking all security aid to Pakistan upon certain calibrated performance benchmarks; awarding a democracy dividend of $1 billion to Pakistan; and focusing on a renewed and sustained engagement with the country.
The approach explicitly mentioned the need to sensitise US policy to the issues of Kashmir and Palestine and of revisiting matters such as the US visa policy for Pakistan. Moreover, as a support to Pakistan’s stability, it called for the redoubling of war efforts in Afghanistan including the institution of a Marshall plan for the country’s future development needs. This well thought out approach was formalised as the Biden-Lugar Bill and aimed to secure US interests in this region by forging a lasting relationship with Pakistan. It was to leverage democratic and economic stability for this front-line ally of the US. On its part, economically burdened and dreadfully fatigued by the on-going war, Pakistan hoped for recognition for its war effort and a bail-out from some of the associated challenges.
However, the noble intentions with which the associated bill started its journey expediently went astray somewhere along the approval process. The current version of the bill whose approval was proudly owned up to and announced by Obama in New York marks a significant and almost seismic shift from the Biden philosophy.
To start with the bill, which now stands approved by both houses, reads like a charge sheet accusing Pakistan of all the “wrongs” in the on-going war. The proposed democratic dividend has been stripped off the bill along with any mention of the Kashmir issue. The intended unconditional non-security aid of $1.5 billion is now strapped and burdened with all sorts of provisos ranging from “dismantling and defeating” Al Qaeda, eliminating “safe havens” and facilitating and ensuring non-proliferation – all of which sound good to the ear but are conditions almost impossible to meet. Considering the fact that the US and mighty NATO alliance has failed to live up to the above conditions in Afghanistan, it can be easily deduced that Pakistan is inevitably destined to fall short of the unreasonable expectations.
To add insult to our collective intelligence, the thinly veiled references to preventing attacks in neighbouring countries (read India) and giving interrogation access to individuals accused of proliferation (read A Q Khan) have been included. Moreover, the democratic safety provisions which on the face of it ensure that US, unlike the past, will favour dealing with civilian governments are all linked to exit waivers which can be conveniently invoked citing US security interests. Finally, the so-called partnership package now seems more like a carte blanche license for imperialistic interventions and intrusive meddling.
The final shape of the bill may now be a fait accompli. The route and ominous direction of its transformation points first and foremost towards a failure of our foreign policy gurus or the expensive lobbyists engaged in the US who allowed a move of stated good intentions to transform into a bill of national humiliation. Secondly, it seems that the earlier stated intentions of the Biden doctrine were just that – stated and not actual intentions. His recent philosophical shift from advocating a redoubling of efforts in Afghanistan to now asking for a renewed war focus on Pakistan and the associated announcement through US officials of the sudden birth of the Quetta Shura gives dangerous credence to the theory of shifting the theater of war into Pakistan.
As is evident from the national debate following the announcement of the bill, there is divided opinion. An elitist minority feels that our already announced budgetary and trade deficits pre-ordained our status as beggars who obviously can’t be choosers and have to live with this humiliation. The majority of the populace, however, dreams of a different Pakistan. A Pakistan where budget deficits are treated not through the begging bowl but by digging deeper into its own resources and strapping the extravagance of its leaders. A nuclear Pakistan which can restore its pride and dignity and assert its geo-political situation to its advantage. A Pakistan which needs to “rethink” its role in an endless war which has drained its economy of $36 billion is now at the verge of enslaving it for a paltry $1.5 billion. This populace is beginning to aggressively question. Is the national humiliation worth the Lugar pill?
Pakistan’s previous relationship with the US abruptly ended in the 90s after the quick and unceremonious exit of the US from Afghanistan. At that time, Pakistan felt abandoned and betrayed like a used tissue. This present romance, unfortunately, seems to be headed towards another ignoble future battered by an endless war and aided by the degrading bill designed to jeopardise any sustained longevity of this relationship.
Courtesy: The News
----------------------------
Kerry-Lugar trap
By Iqbal Jafar
Monday, 12 Oct, 2009

THE Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, popularly known as the Kerry-Lugar bill, is a good example of bureaucratic legalese where the intended meaning may not be clear, nor intended to be clear, and what may be clear, may not be intended.
For starters, the reader may, by way of an experiment in semantics, substitute the words ‘control of’ for the words ‘partnership with’ in the title of the bill, and then read the text again. Suddenly, the text would become simple and clear like a nursery rhyme, though not as funny. At this point we can begin to explore the hidden implications of the provisions of the bill.
First, what is more important is not whether the amount of assistance is too meagre or the conditionalities too many, but the assumptions behind specific matters of concern enumerated in subsection (c) of section 203. The secretary of state has to certify progress on these matters (six in number) every year.
The assumptions that could justify the need for yearly certification are: “supplier networks relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapons-related materials” have not yet been dismantled; the Government of Pakistan including “elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agencies” have yet to cease support to extremist and terrorist groups, particularly the ones that “conducted attacks against the United States or coalition forces in Afghanistan, or against the territory or people of neighbouring countries”; the security forces of Pakistan are likely to be involved, materially or substantially, in “subverting the political and judicial processes of Pakistan”.
Obviously the authors of this bill believe, or have been persuaded to believe, that Pakistan is a rogue state, and has to be dealt with carefully and comprehensively. Hence the financial controls through the IMF and World Bank, surveillance through CIA and other friendly intelligence agencies and the privatised army of the US (Blackwater and others), and a monitoring network visualised in the bill itself.
Second, having painted a picture of Pakistan as a threat to the rest of the world, no less, the bill requires the US president, in paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of section 301, to develop a comprehensive strategy to eliminate the terrorist threat and close safe havens in Pakistan.
Not feeling quite confident about the president’s ability to develop such a strategy on his own, the legislators require him to work closely not only with the Government of Pakistan but also with other “relevant governments and organisations in the region and elsewhere” to “implement effective counter-insurgency and counter-terrorist efforts in and near the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the Fata, the NWFP, parts of Balochistan and parts of Punjab”.
What does this comprehensive strategy mean? Does it mean that the US may, in a fit of desperation, which is not too far away, invite “the other relevant governments” (the Indian government is near, willing and relevant) to help implement counter-terrorist efforts in any or all the areas of Pakistan so laboriously enumerated in the bill? Would the Indians be as foolish as we were to pull America’s chestnuts out of the fire that we are keeping away from their borders?
Third the definition of “civilian government” as given in subsection (d) of section 205. This is important as this section requires that the assistance “may only be provided or made to civilian authorities of a civilian government of Pakistan”. This definition, in the negative form, is interesting: “the term ‘civilian government’ does not include any government of Pakistan whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree”.
This definition implies that if the elected head of government is retained and the rest of the elected ones (the senators, MNAs and MPAs) are despatched by a coup, the residue would still be a civilian government if the head of government, so retained, operates through un-elected civilian surrogates. This formulation would have been hilarious but for the fact that it happens to be the opposite of the minus-one formula that we are so familiar with. The new formula can be described as minus-all-but-one-formula. A South Asian input?
Fourth, the bill provides not only for matters relating to the promised $7.5bn, but also for those that have nothing to do with any kind of aid or assistance to Pakistan.
The most important of such deviations is in sub-section (b) of section 203. It provides that “no letter of offer to sell major defence equipment to Pakistan may be issued pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act and no licence to export major defence equipment to Pakistan may be issued pursuant to such Act in a fiscal year until the secretary of state under the direction of the president, makes the certification required under sub-section (c) for such fiscal year”.
Hence, Pakistan can’t even buy defence equipment out of its own resources once the Kerry-Lugar bill is signed by the president unless all the numerous conditionalities in it are met to the satisfaction of all those monitors, reporters, sleuths, diplomats, experts and others from the US, and other ‘relevant’ countries give a no-objection certificate.
Fifth, under the provisions of sub-section (a) of section 302, the secretary of state, in consultation with the secretary of defence, has to report on no less than 15 areas of concern and interest, including the one about the armed forces. It requires an assessment of the extent to “which civilian executive leaders and parliament exercise oversight and approval of the military budget, the chain of command, the process of promotion for senior military leaders….”
In our context senior military leaders include all one- to four-star generals i.e. all officers above the rank of colonel. One cannot think of a more effective way to de-professionalise the armed forces of Pakistan that happen to be one of the most professional in the world.
Since the Kerry-Lugar bill will be operational only if we agree to accept the offer of $1.5bn a year, it would be far better to decline this offer. Pakistan could save much more than $1.5bn a year merely by ceasing its military operations against the anti-West and anti-India militants. This is feasible as the militants have an understandable quarrel with the US and India, but can come to terms with Pakistan.
Courtesy: DAWN