The Kerry-Lugar Bill (KLB) commits US$1.5 billion a year for five years to Pakistan. But many Pakistanis are outraged by the conditions attached to it. Critics say these are an “insult” to Pakistan, a veritable “surrender” because they violate its “sovereignty”. But anti-American passion and rage aside – which is justified on other counts – the KLB is no more intrusive than similar bills in the past.
The “objectionable” conditions are as follows: (1) The Government of Pakistan must cooperate with the US to dismantle nuclear supplier networks and provide relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks. This means that if Washington wants to question Dr A Q Khan, the GoP must give access to him. But the GoP under General Musharraf and President Asif Zardari has already said this will not be allowed. So what’s the problem? (2) The GoP must demonstrate a sustained commitment to combating terrorist groups, and elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agency must be restrained from covertly supporting those who are conducting attacks against the US or coalition forces in Afghanistan, or those fomenting trouble in neighbouring countries. (3) The GoP must stop al-Qaeda, the Taliban and groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, from operating inside Pakistan or carrying out cross-border attacks into neighbouring countries. (4) The GoP must close terrorist camps in FATA, dismantle terrorist bases elsewhere, including Quetta and Muridke, and take action when provided with intelligence about high-level terrorist targets. (5) The GoP must strengthen counterterrorism and anti-money laundering laws. (6) The security forces of Pakistan must not materially and substantially subvert the political or judicial processes of Pakistan.
But the Obama administration has already praised the GoP’s commitments in this regard. Indeed, the security forces of Pakistan (the army and ISI) helped to restore the independent judiciary and avert a political crisis last March. They are also going after the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and have lost hundreds of soldiers in the military operations . So what’s the problem?
A historical perspective on conditional aid might help. The Symington Amendment in 1976 prohibited Pakistan from enriching nuclear equipment. But that didn’t stop Pakistan from going ahead at Kahuta in its own national interest. So the US was compelled to “waive” the condition and gave aid to Pakistan from 1982-90 in its own national interest. Similarly, the Glenn Amendment in 1977 prohibited nuclear testing. But Pakistan still went ahead in 1998. And the condition was “waived” by the Bush administration after 9/11 in the US national interest. Much the same applied to the Pressler Amendment in 1985. This prohibited aid to countries outside the NPT (like Pakistan) possessing nuclear devices or trying to acquire one. Again, it was “waived” for Pakistan from 1982-90 in the US national interest. The waivers for restoration of “economic assistance” were granted under the Brownback amendments in 1998 and 1999. The most interesting US Bill was the 9/11 Commission Recommendation Act and Consolidated Appropriation Act which stipulated US aid to Pakistan from 2005-2008. The conditions in it required Islamabad to (i) close all known terrorist camps in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir (ii) prevent infiltration across the LoC into India (iii) stop transfer of weapons of mass destruction to third countries or actors (iv) implement democratic reforms. When Islamabad said it was complying with these conditions, the US took it at its word and allowed the aid to continue.
If all those US conditionalities did not “violate Pakistan’s sovereignty” under the military regimes of General Zia ul Haq and General Pervez Musharraf and were embraced by the national security establishment in Pakistan, why aren’t the same sort of restraints acceptable under a democratic civilian government in Islamabad? Indeed, the Kerry-Lugar Bill is better for Pakistan in two significant ways: first, it provides US 7.5 billion in five years to the Zardari government compared to US$5 billion to General Musharraf and US$6 billion to General Zia; second, the aid is non-military and aimed at improving the Pakistan economy, alleviating poverty, promoting education, providing for social infrastructure and popular welfare rather than bombs and jets and missiles and tanks. Isn’t that the popular demand in this country, that we want bread and not guns, that we want economic development and not an arms race? Indeed, the US condition warning the military from “ materially and substantially subverting the political or judicial processes of Pakistan” should be the most welcome of all. Isn’t that what the heroic struggle for the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and his colleagues and the striking down of the military-imposed PCO of November 3, 2007, was all about?
The opposition to the Kerry-Lugar Bill comes from sections of the religio-nationalist media who were until recently pro-Taliban and pro-Al Qaeda. It also comes from the military establishment that is angry because the aid is exclusively for bread and not guns. The two sources have links dating back to the Zia and Musharraf eras. It is most significant that the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz, which is scrambling for a mid-term election and drummed up the “Minus-Zardari” formula recently, thought fit to criticize the Kerry-Lugar Bill only after its stalwarts Shahbaz Sharif and Nisar Ali Khan met with COAS Gen Ashfaq Kayani recently!