Some of the conditions in the Kerry-Lugar bill, which awaits president Obama's signature, have generated a bitter controversy in Pakistan. Addressing a meeting of senior PPP leaders, President Zardari asked them to stoutly defend the bill and to project this US legislation as Pakistan's foreign policy success.
He said the US Secretary of State was only required to certify if Pakistan were moving along the path of democracy, nuclear non-proliferation and drugs control, and none in Pakistan would disagree with these goals. A Parliament discussion of the issue began on a fiery note yesterday, with Leader of the Opposition Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan claiming "each and every page of the bill is reflective of the insulting attitude towards Pakistan."
In his speech on the floor of National Assembly, Prime Minister Gilani said his government would make every effort to evolve consensus on the Kerry-Lugar bill. He also thanked the Leader of Opposition for his categorical statement that PML(N) would never support any attempt aimed at destabilising the democratic system. Earlier, the 122nd Corps Commanders' conference at General Headquarters expressed "serious concerns" over clauses of Kerry-Lugar bill "impacting on national security."
But the conference also referred to the parliament's deliberations on the subject, which it said would allow the government to develop a "national response". According to the army, a formal input is being provided to the government. "However, in the considered view of the forum [Corps Commanders' conference], it is the parliament that represents the will of the people of Pakistan, which would deliberate on the issue, enabling the government to develop a national response."
Three clauses in the Kerry-Lugar bill, which also provides for an assessment of how effective the civilian government's control is over the army, have particularly invited the ire of its critics. The first requires certification that the government continues to cooperate in investigating nuclear proliferation. As the name of Dr A.Q. Khan, mentioned in the original bill, was expunged at Pakistan government's insistence, the latter can claim it has not compromised on the position of not allowing foreign investigators access to him.
The critics, however, insist that there is enough in the wording to enable Washington to put up the demand once again. Information Minister Kaira has a point when he says Pakistan being a sovereign country it is not bound to carry out conditions set by the US. The second certification required is that Pakistan is continuing to make sustained efforts against terrorists, including blocking support by elements within the military and intelligence network for terrorists, taking action against terrorist bases and acting on intelligence about high value targets provided to it.
No sane person would doubt that the government and military are on the same page on the issue of rooting out insurgency in Pakistan. The operation in Malakand in general and Swat in particular would have failed like the earlier operations if there were not an identity of views on the matter between the civilian and military authorities. The phrasing of the clause is, however, less than felicitous as it takes for granted the existence of elements within the military and intelligence network who allegedly provide support to the militants, and Pakistan government is, therefore, required to stop them from the activity.
As many in Pakistan consider Kashmiri militants as freedom fighters rather than terrorists, the phrasing could cause misunderstandings. There is a consensus in Pakistan that the security forces have no right to subvert political or judicial processes but when this comes as a condition for assistance from a foreign country, it is likely to create an unsavoury perception of diktat.
Although, Senator John F Kerry, the architect of the legislation, told reporters after he and other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee met visiting Foreign Minister Shah Mahmoud Qureshi that "no conditions" have been imposed, the Secretary of State is also required to make an assessment of how effective a control the government is exercising over the military, including oversight and approval of defence budgets, chain of command, promotion of senior commanders and civilian involvement in strategic planning.
While in democracies the military is subservient to the civilian authority, much more than a mere desire for this is required in a country like Pakistan which has a tradition of direct military rule interspersed with all too frequent indirect military interventions during democratic spells. Foremost among the requirements is good governance on the part of the elected administrations. There is also a need to have a cadre of parliamentarians capable of comprehending strategic issues and the military's working. The process needs to be started at the earliest with the Parliament seeking the help of the National Defense University in this regard.
It would be unfortunate if this bill was to divide the nation. The government and opposition should use the forum of the National Assembly to hammer out a consensus on the issue.
Comments
Comments are closed.