Behind the Chairman’s Door

As expected, the US Congress has approved a bill on US aid restrictions. This bill includes the amendment from Kerry, Dodd and Biden that calls for strict controls on all aid to Pakistan based on its satisfactory participation in the War on Terror. Now, since most of the US administration and foreign policy teams are adamantly against any kind of conditions on Pakistan’s participation in the War on Terror due to already cooled relations between Islamabad and Washington, it is not surprising that the Democrats decided to attack this strategic relationship, as their muscle flex in response to the Bush Iraq troop surge plan.

Since I have spent a lot of time writing about this development in Pak-US relations, let’s look at the text from the bill and understand how easy it is to sanction Pakistan.

“Now, therefore, be it resolved that it is the sense of the Senate that:

(1) It is the policy of the United States:

(a) To maintain and deepen its long-term strategic partnership with Pakistan;

A small correction here… everyone knows that any partnership would require that both sides give and take equally. That is not the case with Pakistan. The United States has always had a relationship of convenience with Pakistan, “When we want something, you do it. When you want something, maybe… and that only if you do these things first.”

The United States does nothing to assist Pakistan in reaching global markets, but demands complete openness for itself and its companies. Doubt it? The one thing that the United States could do that would bring Pakistan decades forward is to help build a nuclear power plant for the nation, as has been granted to India. Will that happen? Never. Why? The fear of the extremist. So is that the new standard for judging whether a country should develop economically or not, is there the possibility of an extremist government coming into power?

Can’t do that? How about you help Pakistan bring to justice the numerous former politicians, government, and military officials that have robbed the national exchequer? Benazir Bhutto and her husband, Asif Zardari, have stolen over $ 2 billion from Pakistan during their stays in the Prime Minister house. The British courts have cases pending against them. The Swiss courts have cases pending against them. The New York Times did a comprehensive exposé on the level of corruption that her government committed.

Has the United States done anything to freeze her bank accounts or seize any of her multi-million dollar properties in Florida? Nope.

Has the United States done anything to arrest her and return her to Pakistan to stand trial? Nope.

Can I ask you a question? If there was a string of robberies in your neighborhood and everyone knew who was doing it, it is reported to the police. The police listen, but do nothing. Another series of robberies happen and again everyone knows who did it. Again, it is reported to the police. Nothing is done. Then one day while you are at the police station trying to get information about the robberies, you see the person that robbed you smiling and having a cup of coffee with the Chief of Police. Would you trust the police?

The Government of Pakistan has repeatedly requested the assistance of the US government in bringing this to prosecution and returning the funds to Pakistan to aid in development. $ 2 billion, do you know how much that can do for a developing country? Nothing… when the United States is your partner.

It is a relationship of convenience. Call a spade a spade.

(b) To work with the government of Pakistan to combat international terrorism and to end the use of Pakistani territory as a safe haven for Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated terrorist organizations, including through the integration and development of Fata;

For anyone that is familiar with the tribal areas of Pakistan, you know that this is much easier said than done. In the tribal areas, you have the most rampant form of extremism, which is mostly due to their demands to live outside the laws of Pakistan. In the tribal areas, the government police are not allowed; they have constabularies. In the tribal areas, the government doesn’t make the laws or decide punishment; the Nawab, or self-proclaimed King, of the area does. In the tribal areas, polio vaccinations were stopped due to mullahs convincing villagers that they were sterilization shots by the West. These people will not give up their alliances to fundamental Islam and the people that fight for it easily. Nor will this be a fight that can be won with tanks and guns; it will require diplomacy and long term dedication to achieve it. Are you really read to deliver on this? Or is this more flowery language to convince yourselves that you really are trying to help the poor, struggling nation of Pakistan that would be nowhere without US assistance?

(c) To work with the government of Pakistan to dismantle existing proliferation networks and prevent nuclear proliferation;

Wasn’t this effectively done, according to the US government, with Dr. A.Q. Khan being placed under house arrest in Pakistan? The Government of Pakistan has been more than cooperative in providing information gained from Dr. A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program. Or is this the US government’s way of saying to Pakistan, “give him to us and see how much he talks”?

Thank you, but no!

We will not give you our citizens to torture and abuse.

(d) To work to facilitate the peaceful resolution of all bilateral disputes between Pakistan and its neighboring countries;

“Peaceful resolution of all bilateral disputes.”

A bomb blast happens in India and before there is an investigation, evidence or witnesses, the finger is pointed at Pakistan, the Army and its Intelligence wing. The Afghani people, who have been at war with themselves for decades, now blame Pakistan for their instability. How will you first get these countries to understand that the bulk of the problem is their own and not Pakistan’s?

India is a country of 1 billion people, with numerous levels of castes (including untouchables), and numerous insurgent groups, there are bound to be people with a bone to pick with the Indian government that are not loyal to Pakistan. When you look at the entire Kashmir situation, Pakistan has put forward peace plan after peace plan, only to have India get up from the table because Pakistan’s plan includes independence for Kashmir.

It is also well known that Washington is heavily leaning to India’s side on the Kashmir issue with its continued status quo. The Kashmiri people will continue to resist Indian occupation, both peacefully and violently, outside the control or purview of Pakistan and unless a serious and concerted effort is made to resolve this issue, peace between Pakistan and India is very difficult.

Also, the United States needs to take a more evenhanded position, both in words and deeds. Due to the United States’ lack of evenhandedness, India continues to escalate its nuclear arsenal, causing Pakistan to respond, continuing the South Asian arms race.

Afghanistan is a country in ruins, which has been in ruins for decades now. But within Afghanistan, you have numerous peoples that can’t stand each other. Drug lords have long fought the Afghan government and international agencies trying to reduce the poppy cultivation. The Northern Alliance has been at war with the Taliban for decades and currently has the “advantage” of having the US Coalition forces fighting for them. And the people of Afghanistan have been caught in the middle since the beginning. Afghanistan’s own instability is not because of Pakistan; it is in spite of Pakistan.

After the Soviet conflict, it was Pakistan’s borders that swelled to absorb the displaced Afghanis, well over 4 million; not the United States’. It was Pakistan that suffered from a proliferation of sophisticated American made weapons and narcotics, not the United States.

Pakistan has always been a ready partner for peace in the region. It is our neighbors that would rather blame Pakistan than admit they have problems in their own countries.

(e) To encourage the transition in Pakistan to a fully democratic system of governance; and

Can you define democracy?

I ask that because Pakistan has already experienced the United States attempts to establish democracy. In 1988, Benazir Bhutto “democratically” became Prime Minister of Pakistan after General Zia’s, American’s #1 during the Soviet conflict, plane was shot down. Her government was dissolved under charges of corruption. Next came Nawaz Sharif, again “democratically” elected, as Prime Minister. Government dissolved under charges of corruption. Funnily, this process repeated itself and the same 2 people became Prime Minister in succession. This was our experience with democracy.

Do you realize what this one step would entail? You would have to start by re-writing the Constitution of Pakistan to have 3 independent branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. Then, you would need to create a system of checks and balances that would curtail abuses of power and corruption. You would need to reform the judicial system in Pakistan so it wouldn’t take 20 years to reach a judgment in a court case.

Your democracy in Pakistan would need to find a place for the Islamic right, being that Pakistan is an Islamic Republic. Or were you planning on changing that?

Democracy does not mean a nation voting for its leader. It means an entire system that supports and protects the development of a nation socially and economically after the ballots are counted. We are not guinea pigs for your aspiring policy makers. Nor do we want the democracy that we have already seen with previous leaders or what we see in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Are you really read to see this step through to its natural end?

(f) To implement a robust aid strategy that supports programs in Pakistan related to education, governance, rule of law, women’s rights, medical access, and infrastructure development; and

Yeah, right. Isn’t this what was promised to the Afghanis and Iraqis?

(2) The determination of appropriate levels of US military assistance to Pakistan should be guided by demonstrable progress by the government of Pakistan in:

And here we are… the conditions for acceptance…. “we want to do all these things for you, but first you have to do these things for us….” This is the same story that was passed to Pakistan after 9/11. During that conversation, Pakistan asked for delivery of the long outstanding F-16s that had been frozen due to the Pressler Amendment, another Pakistan specific amendment curtailing aid. We were promised immediate delivery… today, we are still waiting for them.

I wonder how this amendment will affect the Bush administration’s decision today to give Pakistan $ 750 million in aid to build a border fence on the Pak-Afghan border?

(a) Preventing Al Qaeda and associated terrorist organizations from operating in the territory of Pakistan, including by eliminating terrorist training camps or facilities, arresting members of Al Qaeda and associated terrorist organizations, and countering recruitment efforts;

80,000 Pakistan Army soldiers in the border areas with Afghanistan. Military precision strikes on suspected terrorist training centers. Regular raids of homes, businesses and warehouses that are suspected of being used for terrorist activities. Special terrorism courts. Active cooperation with the United States in arresting members of al Qaeda. Pledge to build a border fence and plant land mines on the Pak-Afghan border to stop Taliban supporters from entering Afghanistan. Presidential order to all Afghanis in Pakistan to return to Afghanistan.

(b) Preventing the Taliban from using the territory of Pakistan as a sanctuary from which to launch attacks within Afghanistan, including by arresting Taliban leaders, stopping cross-border incursions, and countering recruitment efforts; and

(c) Implementing democratic reforms, including by allowing free, fair and inclusive elections at all levels of government in accordance with internationally recognized democratic norms.

See above.

There are more opportunities for failure, than opportunities for success. And I say that with all honesty, I see more opportunities for the Congress to call for sanctions or limit the amount of funding provided to Pakistan unless the conditions of aid are met. This is a recipe for disaster.

The National Assembly has already voted that any resolution calling for sanctions against Pakistan by the US administration would require a re-assessment of Pakistan’s role in the War on Terror. Our involvement thus far has been for our own security in Pakistan from extremist elements and a willingness to further develop the existing relationship with the United States.

Now, as we struggle with suicide bombers and growing domestic dissatisfaction with the close alignment of Pakistan and the United States against fellow Muslims, we need to do what is best for Pakistan, not matter what the US and its allies may want.

Share and Enjoy: