In the name of 'balance of power in the region'

Within weeks of the widely criticised Kerry-Lugar bill, a joint session of the US Senate and Congress is taking up the equally offensive military assistance bill for Pakistan. The bill has already been passed separately by both the Houses and the joint conference is to reconcile the two versions later this weekend before presenting the presentation of the approved bill to President Obama for signing it into law.
The tough restrictions jointly crafted by Democratic Senator Robert Menendez and Republican Senator Bob Corker are likely to draw flak from the Pakistan army, opposition and media. Isn't it ironic that what is seen as an extraordinary act of generosity in the US should create a perception of unfairness and give birth to feelings of a grievous injury? The bill displays a lack of confidence in the government and the army vis-a-vis their utilisation of the military assistance. It directs the Pentagon to track down how Pakistan uses military hardware it receives to prohibit the transfer of defence articles and services without Washington's consent.
The legislation also calls for the White House to send the lawmakers a report every six months on progress towards the long-term security and stability in Pakistan. It requires Pentagon to certify that Islamabad is waging a "concerted" war on the terrorists. The most controversial condition is the requirement that the US military assistance must not adversely impact the balance of power in the region, implying thereby that it must not be used against India. The conditions would be considered to have been worked out to appease the Indian lobby in Washington.
While Washington can maintain that the conditions are consistent with the requirements of its national security interests, many would question if they will ever be helpful to Pakistan? Washington needs to realise that any transaction between the two parties has to be mutually advantageous for both.
It would be questioned by many why conditions of the sort were not attached to the more than $7 billion military assistance provided to General Musharraf's dictatorial regime over a period of six years. It was only towards his fag end that unnamed government and military officials leaked out to media what they considered to be instances of the misuse of US aid.
It was maintained that claims about expenses incurred by the military had been vastly inflated, funds were being misused and in cases there was no account of how the money was spent. Further, that little was being done to improve the firepower or efficiency of the FC, which was then at the forefront of the fight against terrorism in the tribal areas.
It was only in early 2008 that there was a sudden eruption of complaints that the US was getting bad value for its money. While all this was being propagated by the western media there was no attempt by the US administration to make the aid conditional on transparency for its use against the terrorists only. Musharraf's stand that weapons were issued to battalions and they took them wherever they were deployed was considered sufficient.
Indeed, it is a matter of grave concern that the US administration should be more understandable to Pakistan's needs under a military dispensation than under a democratic set-up.
That the conditions should come at a time when the army, with the full support of the PAF, has succeeded in establishing the writ of the state in Swat and has deployed two divisions in South Waziristan where they are involved in a gruesome fight with the terrorists, is all the more worrisome.
The military needs scores of attack helicopters, jet planes, and night vision equipment of all types to win the war. It is also in need of drones. To deny crucial military equipment to Pakistan on the plea that it can also be used against India would be viewed as a dangerous design aimed at exposing its military personnel to grave risks.
In the name of maintaining a balance of power in the region what is being done amounts to helping India turn into a regional superpower exercising hegemony over its neighbours. With issues like Kashmir remaining unresolved, the American conditions would be interpreted as an indirect support to India to continue to maintain its illegitimate and illegal hold over the Kashmir Valley.