American engagement in Pakistan has never been people-specific. It has always been issue-specific and geared only to prop up non-democratic regimes in Pakistan, be they civilian or non-civilian.
The Kerry-Lugar Bill was supposed to bring a “larger conceptual framework” and mutuality content to the “transactional” US-Pakistan relationship. It did just the opposite. There was serious backlash in Pakistan over the intrusive conditionalities attached to the US military and non-military aid which was seen by the people at large and major civil and military stakeholders in the country’s power structure other than just a few individuals in the ruling elite as demeaning of national sovereignty and self-respect.
No doubt, the KLB is an American legislation framed only to serve the larger US national interests. It is not our law and we cannot change it. But it is not binding on us. Just as the US Congress is not answerable to anyone in Pakistan, the Pakistan government and the parliament both are not subservient to US Congress. Our people have the choice and the right to reject the Kerry-Lugar Bill if they don’t like it. This is as simple as that. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, during her recent visit to Pakistan, also made it clear that the US was not imposing the aid package on Pakistan.
We need to understand that 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 also now strategic priorities. No country gives untied or unconditional aid. 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 sides always do lot of home work to evolve the needed “convergence” of mutual obligations.
In this particular case, however, it seems no such home work was done. The Kerry-Lugar Bill became a crisis issue for both the PPP government in Islamabad and US policy makers in Washington. At the same time, it was also 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, and an issue of endemic credibility. The government’s representatives in Washington were apparently working at cross-national purposes.
The major civilian and military stakeholders in the country, including the parliament, the opposition and the army were either kept in the dark or were misinformed about the contents of the Bill or about the government’s own approach being followed by our Embassy and its lobbyists on the Capitol Hill in Washington. The Foreign Office, marginalized on many other issues of vital national importance, seemed to be totally out of the loop. This has never been the way we have worked in Washington in the past.
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 in Pakistan. 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.
We need a new chapter altogether to open for balancing this unusual relationship which has seen ups and downs with rotating phases of “engagement and estrangement” depending on the nature of regional and global dynamics. And every US “engagement” with Pakistan was issue-specific with no shared perspectives.
The reaction in Pakistan to the conditionalities has been overwhelmingly negative and resentful. Some of the benchmarks were seen as an infringement of Pakistan’s sovereignty and dignity. They also had far-reaching security implications. No wonder, the military high command in Pakistan publicly expressed its “serious concern” over the controversial provisions of the Bill constituting interference in the country’s internal affairs and a threat to its “national security.”
While the Bill was still being debated in the parliament to evolve a “national response” in conformity with our own legitimate concerns, the Foreign Minister rushed to Washington and obtained a clarificatory statement from the co-authors of the Bill which seeks to reassure Pakistan that none of the conditionalities will threaten or infringe upon Pakistan’s sovereignty and security. The statement is not part of the legislated Act and will have no legal status or effect.
Meanwhile, Islamabad is already warming up to the very thought of imminent US money flowing into Pakistan. Praetorian politico-bureaucratic hands are being oiled in anticipation of US cash inflows in the coming months. Hundreds of new NGOs are being launched in the names of influential “les femmes d’affaires,” mostly spouses of senior civilian and non-civilian public officials to do full justice to the American money.
Shaukat Tareen doesn’t want to be left behind, and is dying to balance his budgetary deficit with American aid. For him, Pakistan’s macroeconomic stability means more IFI loans and aid liquidities. He hasn’t done a thing for domestic resource mobilization or reduced governmental spending. Ever since he took over, he is following into his fellow banker predecessor’s footsteps running after foreign loans and liquidities rather than domestic resource mobilization. To his dismay, however, this time the US will give no cash.
Since our independence, Washington has poured cash into Pakistani coffers “like hell” for the assorted “errands” we have been carrying out on its behalf, first in the Cold War, then in the Afghan-Soviet War and lately as its non-Nato ally in the War on Terror. Since 2001 alone, it gave more than $15 billion to General Musharraf. Whatever he did with that money other than building a fortress in Chak Shahzad and buying a flat in London, the people in Pakistan have yet to feel any security-related or welfare-oriented betterment in their daily lives.
Instead, the gravity and magnitude of terrorism-related violence in our country have increased manifold. The VIP culture has left our common people at the mercy of criminals and killers. The entire police force in the country is currently on VIP security duty. No police personnel are available for “law and order” or public safety purposes. Thousands of them are seen lined up day and night along VIP routes. We also hear a large consignment of luxurious bulletproof cars and SUVs worth billions of rupees is in the pipeline for VIPs and senior officials in anticipation of US aid’s first disbursement.
American engagement in Pakistan has never been people-specific. It has always been issue-specific and geared only to prop up non-democratic regimes in Pakistan, be they civilian or non-civilian. It was this reality that a well-meaning Senator Joe Biden publicly admitted while addressing the New Hampshire Institute of Politics in November 2007. He pledged a new policy towards Pakistan which would be people-centered, not ruler-specific. But before Joe Biden could honour his promise, democracy in his country as well as in ours started taking its “revenge” from history.
Barack Obama, the first-ever African born non-white President in US history entered the White House in Washington with Joe Biden himself taking oath as his Vice-President. Obama promised a change from his predecessor’s policies to his own people and to the world at large. The change never came. In Pakistan, US-backed Musharraf was ousted by the people of Pakistan, and an NRO-based system emerged through February 18, 2008 elections in which the people voted for democracy and peace. The country today has neither of them.
While the Bill was still being debated in the parliament to evolve a “national response” in conformity with our own legitimate concerns, the Foreign Minister rushed to Washington and obtained a clarificatory statement from the co-authors of the Bill which seeks to reassure Pakistan that none of the conditionalities will threaten or infringe upon Pakistan’s sovereignty and security. The statement is not part of the legislated Act and will have no legal status or effect.
Meanwhile, Islamabad is already warming up to the very thought of imminent US money flowing into Pakistan. Praetorian politico-bureaucratic hands are being oiled in anticipation of US cash inflows in the coming months. Hundreds of new NGOs are being launched in the names of influential “les femmes d’affaires,” mostly spouses of senior civilian and non-civilian public officials to do full justice to the American money.
Shaukat Tareen doesn’t want to be left behind, and is dying to balance his budgetary deficit with American aid. For him, Pakistan’s macroeconomic stability means more IFI loans and aid liquidities. He hasn’t done a thing for domestic resource mobilization or reduced governmental spending. Ever since he took over, he is following into his fellow banker predecessor’s footsteps running after foreign loans and liquidities rather than domestic resource mobilization. To his dismay, however, this time the US will give no cash.
Since our independence, Washington has poured cash into Pakistani coffers “like hell” for the assorted “errands” we have been carrying out on its behalf, first in the Cold War, then in the Afghan-Soviet War and lately as its non-Nato ally in the War on Terror. Since 2001 alone, it gave more than $15 billion to General Musharraf. Whatever he did with that money other than building a fortress in Chak Shahzad and buying a flat in London, the people in Pakistan have yet to feel any security-related or welfare-oriented betterment in their daily lives.
Instead, the gravity and magnitude of terrorism-related violence in our country have increased manifold. The VIP culture has left our common people at the mercy of criminals and killers. The entire police force in the country is currently on VIP security duty. No police personnel are available for “law and order” or public safety purposes. Thousands of them are seen lined up day and night along VIP routes. We also hear a large consignment of luxurious bulletproof cars and SUVs worth billions of rupees is in the pipeline for VIPs and senior officials in anticipation of US aid’s first disbursement.
American engagement in Pakistan has never been people-specific. It has always been issue-specific and geared only to prop up non-democratic regimes in Pakistan, be they civilian or non-civilian. It was this reality that a well-meaning Senator Joe Biden publicly admitted while addressing the New Hampshire Institute of Politics in November 2007. He pledged a new policy towards Pakistan which would be people-centered, not ruler-specific. But before Joe Biden could honour his promise, democracy in his country as well as in ours started taking its “revenge” from history.
Barack Obama, the first-ever African born non-white President in US history entered the White House in Washington with Joe Biden himself taking oath as his Vice-President. Obama promised a change from his predecessor’s policies to his own people and to the world at large. The change never came. In Pakistan, US-backed Musharraf was ousted by the people of Pakistan, and an NRO-based system emerged through February 18, 2008 elections in which the people voted for democracy and peace. The country today has neither of them.
The VIP culture has left our common people at the mercy of criminals and killers. The entire police force in the country is currently on VIP security duty. No police personnel are available for “law and order” or public safety purposes.
Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s visit to Islamabad provided a welcome opportunity for both sides to discuss and overcome their currently raging issues. Despite agitated mood in the country over the KLB issue, she managed to reach out to the people of Pakistan through an unprecedented public diplomacy and communicated directly with a cross-section of our society. Her interaction with our media and the youth, in particular, was lively and frank, and served a purpose that could not have been served by any set of officially inlaid “talking points” on either side.
Mrs. Clinton must have seen how the people in Pakistan feel disturbed on their country being treated as America’s traditional fall guy. They consider the US responsible for all their terrorism-related problems. They are concerned over the growing Indo-US nexus beginning with their defense and nuclear deals three years ago and now developing into a multidimensional strategic partnership with ominous implications for the critical balance of power in the region and for Pakistan’s legitimate security interests.
Somehow, our people also blame the US for invariably being on the wrong side in their traditional power struggle in the bumpy and jumpy arena of domestic politics. They see US footprints in most “constitutional subversions” and “judicial circumventions” in this country, and an invisible role in our shadowy political deals including the notorious NRO. Our autocratic rulers, civilian or non-civilian, have always been Washington’s blue-eyed boys.
Hilary left a promising message in Pakistan. After eight years of the Bush administration, during which suspicions between the two countries had deepened, Pakistan now had a “friendly” new administration in Washington where, according to her, both she and her president, Barrack Hussain Obama were seeking to build a new bilateral relationship to be based on mutual respect. Getting this message across was an uphill task, she herself admitted. Yet she was confident that her visit would turn a new page in the US-Pakistan relationship.
But turning one page will not change the sixty-two year long chequered history of a relationship which throughout its existence has lacked continuity, a larger conceptual framework, and a shared vision beyond each side’s "narrowly based and vaguely defined" issue-specific priorities. It has been a curious, if not enigmatic relationship as it never had any conflict of interest and yet it experienced repeated interruptions in its intensity as well as integrity.
We need a new chapter altogether to open for balancing this unusual relationship which has seen ups and downs with rotating phases of “engagement and estrangement” depending on the nature of regional and global dynamics. And every US “engagement” with Pakistan was issue-specific with no shared perspectives. The spells of close ties between the two countries have been and continue to be single-issue engagements of limited or uncertain duration. This tradition generated its own anti-Americanism in Pakistan with a perception that the US was not a reliable ally and did not want democracy to take roots in this country.
This perception is deeply seared into Pakistan’s collective memory. One fears the KLB issue is the beginning of yet another “estrangement” phase in our troubled relationship. On her part, Hilary wanted us to forget the unpleasant past and look toward a promising future. She assured our people that this time the US will not abandon them as it did after the Soviet withdrawal. She repeatedly said the current US engagement with Pakistan is going to be enduring, not transitory or evanescent.
On her return to The Foggy Bottom, one hopes Hilary is seriously working with President Obama to evolve a new approach on Pakistan. The purpose of this new approach must be to strengthen, not weaken the US-Pakistan relationship by infusing in it greater political, economic and strategic content. Our people also want the US engagement with Pakistan to go beyond the war on terror. Pakistan has many other positive assets including its geo-political location and its tremendous economic potential as a progressive and forward-looking modern state to make it a reliable strategic partner in this region.
And for Washington, Pakistan must always mean its real people, not the chintzy class of its money-gulping and land-grabbing ruling politico-bureaucratic elite. Washington’s new focus on Pakistan must be people-centered, not ruler specific. Our corrupt rulers have always abused this relationship for their own self-serving purposes.
Ultimately, U.S-Pakistan relations will stand or fall based on whether they benefit the people of Pakistan or any particular regime or ruler. To endure and flourish, the US-Pakistan equation must be balanced on the basis of sovereign equality and mutual respect. Our people may resent US power and its overbearing conduct but not its ideals of liberty, justice and democracy which they hope one day they will also enjoy.
Any future non-military US aid to Pakistan must be only in the form of people-specific projects, e.g. mass transit system, hospitals, universities, schools and basic health units in tribal areas. The government may be consulted for location of these projects but their completion must be done by the US under its own supervision through USAID or any other appropriate body. No cash or blank checks to the government or any governmental agency, please. It is never too late to learn from past mistakes.
Mrs. Clinton must have seen how the people in Pakistan feel disturbed on their country being treated as America’s traditional fall guy. They consider the US responsible for all their terrorism-related problems. They are concerned over the growing Indo-US nexus beginning with their defense and nuclear deals three years ago and now developing into a multidimensional strategic partnership with ominous implications for the critical balance of power in the region and for Pakistan’s legitimate security interests.
Somehow, our people also blame the US for invariably being on the wrong side in their traditional power struggle in the bumpy and jumpy arena of domestic politics. They see US footprints in most “constitutional subversions” and “judicial circumventions” in this country, and an invisible role in our shadowy political deals including the notorious NRO. Our autocratic rulers, civilian or non-civilian, have always been Washington’s blue-eyed boys.
Hilary left a promising message in Pakistan. After eight years of the Bush administration, during which suspicions between the two countries had deepened, Pakistan now had a “friendly” new administration in Washington where, according to her, both she and her president, Barrack Hussain Obama were seeking to build a new bilateral relationship to be based on mutual respect. Getting this message across was an uphill task, she herself admitted. Yet she was confident that her visit would turn a new page in the US-Pakistan relationship.
But turning one page will not change the sixty-two year long chequered history of a relationship which throughout its existence has lacked continuity, a larger conceptual framework, and a shared vision beyond each side’s "narrowly based and vaguely defined" issue-specific priorities. It has been a curious, if not enigmatic relationship as it never had any conflict of interest and yet it experienced repeated interruptions in its intensity as well as integrity.
We need a new chapter altogether to open for balancing this unusual relationship which has seen ups and downs with rotating phases of “engagement and estrangement” depending on the nature of regional and global dynamics. And every US “engagement” with Pakistan was issue-specific with no shared perspectives. The spells of close ties between the two countries have been and continue to be single-issue engagements of limited or uncertain duration. This tradition generated its own anti-Americanism in Pakistan with a perception that the US was not a reliable ally and did not want democracy to take roots in this country.
This perception is deeply seared into Pakistan’s collective memory. One fears the KLB issue is the beginning of yet another “estrangement” phase in our troubled relationship. On her part, Hilary wanted us to forget the unpleasant past and look toward a promising future. She assured our people that this time the US will not abandon them as it did after the Soviet withdrawal. She repeatedly said the current US engagement with Pakistan is going to be enduring, not transitory or evanescent.
On her return to The Foggy Bottom, one hopes Hilary is seriously working with President Obama to evolve a new approach on Pakistan. The purpose of this new approach must be to strengthen, not weaken the US-Pakistan relationship by infusing in it greater political, economic and strategic content. Our people also want the US engagement with Pakistan to go beyond the war on terror. Pakistan has many other positive assets including its geo-political location and its tremendous economic potential as a progressive and forward-looking modern state to make it a reliable strategic partner in this region.
And for Washington, Pakistan must always mean its real people, not the chintzy class of its money-gulping and land-grabbing ruling politico-bureaucratic elite. Washington’s new focus on Pakistan must be people-centered, not ruler specific. Our corrupt rulers have always abused this relationship for their own self-serving purposes.
Ultimately, U.S-Pakistan relations will stand or fall based on whether they benefit the people of Pakistan or any particular regime or ruler. To endure and flourish, the US-Pakistan equation must be balanced on the basis of sovereign equality and mutual respect. Our people may resent US power and its overbearing conduct but not its ideals of liberty, justice and democracy which they hope one day they will also enjoy.
Any future non-military US aid to Pakistan must be only in the form of people-specific projects, e.g. mass transit system, hospitals, universities, schools and basic health units in tribal areas. The government may be consulted for location of these projects but their completion must be done by the US under its own supervision through USAID or any other appropriate body. No cash or blank checks to the government or any governmental agency, please. It is never too late to learn from past mistakes.
No comments:
Post a Comment