Public criticism of the Kerry-Lugar Bill refuses to die down. President Zardari chaired a meeting of his party leaders on Monday, directing them to mount a vigorous response to the criticism. Briefing the media presidential spokesman, Farhatullah Baber, said the President explained the Bill's salient features and rejected criticism that it undermined our national sovereignty in any way.
Instead he quoted the President as claiming - of course boastfully - that it was the first Pakistan aid bill that did not require presidential certification every year; it only required certification by the Secretary of State that Pakistan was moving along the path of democracy, nuclear proliferation and drug control. Who would disagree, under the present democratic dispensation, with these goals, he asked?
Well, there are many, as the government has already discovered to its chagrin. The issue is not what Pakistan needs to do regarding democracy, nuclear proliferation or any other issue, but that an outside country thinks it has the right to tell us what we must do in these and many other domestic policy areas, which amounts to undermining nation sovereignty.
As to the change in the certification authority, the presidential assertion is a bit confusing. For as far as common knowledge goes, the US President holds a higher position than his own appointee, Secretary of State. If the change in certification authority means anything, it is status down-gradation.
Indeed, we badly need the money - $7.5 billion to be spread out over a five-year period - that the bill promises to bring in, mostly for various economic development projects. The money though, is only a tiny fraction of over $40 billion losses that the government says we have suffered in different forms due to the ongoing war in Afghanistan-a fallout of the US' military campaign in Afghanistan, which has had devastating spillover effects in this country.
In helping Pakistan deal with this mess, the US Congress has actually tried to help itself. The US cannot afford to let Pakistan slide into chaos. A stable Pakistan is in its own interest as it is in every body else's. The assistance package, therefore, is neither a favour on the part of US, nor a great achievement of our government, like it is made out to be.
The bill, yet to be signed by President Obama, is full of the usual American arrogance, with the congressional leaders having assumed the right to micro-manage our domestic affairs. In fact, President Zardari's government itself has been expressing displeasure that the bulk of the assistance money is to be disbursed through non-governmental organisations, rather than serving as budgetary support. Finance Minister Shaukat Tarin has pointed out that this way, as much as 40-45 percent of the money will be lost in administrative and monitoring costs.
This particular condition was believed to have something to do with the pervasive corruption in our government departments. That appears to be only partially true, considering that the MQM Nazim of Karachi and a fellow party leader quietly flew to Washington last month to directly negotiate MQM's share in the assistance package. Which is a highly objectionable act of political influence selling and buying.
Understandably, public criticism is focussed on the US legislators having assumed the right to micro manage our domestic affairs, order the conduct of our security agencies, and even third country relations. The bill they passed casts aspersions, for instance, on security agencies' role when it demands ceasing of support, "including by elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agency, to extremist and terrorist groups, particularly to any group that has conducted attacks against the Untied States or coalition forces in Afghanistan, or against the territory or people of neighbouring countries [read India]."
Opinion leaders have reacted strongly to at least two other limitations the bill prescribes, one related to nuclear proliferation and the other civilian control over military affairs. The context of these conditionalities - ie inclusion in a number of intrusive limitations - rather than the content, makes them unpalatable.
Under the bill, the Secretary of State is to certify that the Government of Pakistan co-operates with the US "in efforts to dismantle supplier networks." Indeed, proliferation is a serious issue, and we should expect to deal with the reverberations emanating from Dr Qadir proliferation network for sometime to come. The bill further asks for "providing relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks."
Many critics have read it wrong to argue that this would require providing direct access to any Pakistani the US accuses of involvement in proliferation. The connective 'or' is all-important here. It means the US is not to insist on direct access, and that the provision of relevant information from suspected proliferators would also be acceptable - just like what the previous government had agreed to.
Much has also been made of the condition that calls for "an assessment of the extent to which the Government of Pakistan exercises effective civilian control of the military, including a description of the extent to which civilian executive leaders and parliament exercise oversight and approval of military budgets, the chain of command, the process of promotion for senior military leaders, civil involvement in strategic guidance and planning, and military involvement in civil administration." Some critics have been presenting a distorted interpretation to allege the US wants to control even the process of senior military leaders' promotions.
What it clearly seeks to establish is civilian control, of both the executive and parliament, over military matters. That is perfectly in consonance with the principles of democratic governance, in which the military is subservient to civilian leadership. Isn't it what all pro-democracy people in this country demand and deserve?
However, the US and other Western government leaders regularly violate this rule during visits to this country when their meetings' schedules routinely include the military chief, along with the President and the Prime Minister. Cynics also point out that, at present, political power is concentrated in the office of president, in contravention of the consensus-1973 Constitution, and the prime minister and parliament remain weak.
While establishing civilian oversight over military matters, including appointments and promotions is necessary, it is equally important to strengthen democratic institutions. Doing so in the present situation would be akin to putting the cart before the horse. To stretch the example a bit further, as long as the bridle is not firmly fastened to the horse, the horse is going to kick the cart at will. That scene is just about to unfold at Kerry-Lugar bill's provocation. Signs are, it will be rejected in its present form.
saida_fazal@yahoo.com