Should I laugh or cry - the question often asked in situations of dubious nature, can be justly asked by any Pakistani now that the Obama administration has linked non-military aid with border security. It is the Obama administration's determination that given the "resurgence" of al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan the new leadership in Washington will "refocus American resources on the greatest threat to our security".
Pakistan will get more non-military aid, says the first foreign policy agenda issued by the White House, but Pakistan would also be held "accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan". Having lost more troops in the fight, to secure the border with Afghanistan than all the US-led coalition partners put together what else Islamabad is expected to do; one would think of nuking these miscreants.
That Pakistan would need a No Objection Certificate for non-military American assistance is not something new, but agreeing to 'fight for money' is unacceptable unless one is a mercenary by definition. There is a dangerous catch for Pakistan also in the Obama administration's second high-priority foreign policy goal, namely "securing nuclear weapons".
Somehow, the White House thinks that, "the gravest danger to the America people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes". That being the American perception the "new administration will secure all loose materials in the world within four years".
Additionally, President Obama and Vice President Biden will "negotiate a verifiable global ban" on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This is expected to "deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials". Also, the Obama administration would "strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty". "So that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions."
One has heard all this before. It would have been better if the new administration had given some more thought to this line of thinking, for people around the world expect President Obama to think differently than his predecessors and Cold War warriors. One may ask, how about revoking the nuclear agreement US signed with India that by all standards is a blatant violation of the NPT.
Then, as one of the killers of CTBT how can the United States pretend supporting the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), which controls the "loose" nuclear materials. And as for the 'security' of nuclear assets who will determine whether others' nuclear assets are safe and secure. Borrowed security mechanism is essentially antithetical to nuclear deterrence.
There is no known instance when a nuclear bomb fell in the hands of a terrorist; and it cannot. As for its use, during more than half a century of its existence as a weapon of war it was used only once and that was by the United States. Given the Obama administration's nuclear doctrine Pakistan may be offered the 'shared' safety code, PALs.
It should be declined, as was done before. Defined as "renewing America's security and standing in the world through a new era of American leadership", the strategy announced by the Obama White House, has nothing new about it. It is the continuum of Big Brother syndrome. Barack Obama means something different to the world at large. Under him logic and reason is expected to substitute for force and hubris. Dialogue between civilisations was the buzzword as he campaigned for election.
What he has inherited as the US policy in this region is outcome of an unholy alliance between a democratically elected American cowboy and a Pakistani military dictator. It lacks popular support and badly needs to be revisited. Before laying conditions for non-military aid for Pakistan the US administration would have been better advised to hold consultations with their Pakistani counterparts. It can still be done.