Himalayan Affairs

"I always wondered why somebody doesn’t do something about that. Then I realized I was somebody."- Lily Tomlin

Username or email	Password
Security Charecter		Sign Up	Forgot your password?

Welcome Guest User | | Sign Up | Login |

A Bone Of Contention Between US And Pakistan

Author : Cecil Victor | .

Posted on : Thursday, December 31, 2009

Generous US aid notwithstanding the Kerry-Lugar Bill became a bone of contention between Pakistan and the United States. Despite US Senator John Kerry’s efforts to meet some top Pak political leaders to explain American concerns for the stability and economic survival of Pakistan, a large section of political leadership and media of Pakistan have lashed at the US legislative on as anti-Pakistani.

Comments appearing in Pak dailies like the Dawn, the Nation and the Daily Times, indicate the growing and wide ranging emergence of an Anti-US lobbay. This lobby is very sharp and defensive in its reaction. A very significant commentary is Shahzad Chaudhary’s article in the Daily times of October 19. Expressing his sharp views on the Kerry-Lugar Bill the commentator observed, “The Bill and its language in certain clauses are a manifest failure of Pakistani institutions to protect their vital interests. What the foreign minister and the Pakistani Embassy in Washington seem to be doing now should have been done over the last six months

“At a recent US-Pakistan dialogue, the Kerry-Lugar Bill surfaced with all its contentions. While the Pakistanis expounded on the various negative implications — of which there are a few, and disturbing ones at that — the Americans were equally sensitive to the colour that the Bill took on with Pakistan’s reaction to what they believe was a genuine American effort to assuage Pakistan’s on-going plight in all spheres, economic, social and security related.

The Nuclear Dimension

What takes centre stage in this ongoing debate within Pakistan is a repeated referral to clauses of the Bill that have to do with the nuclear dimension of Pakistan’s capabilities. How much of it is a lack of understanding on the part of the Pakistanis and what falls in the category of political grandstanding has befuddled Pakistanis’ sensibilities.

To be fair, the clause is not binding at all; it in fact is an either-or statement that seeks direct or indirect information if ever a further inquiry is required of the main players — read AQ Khan. Pakistan has defended against any related insinuation with poise and educated and informed responses, not through emotive sensationalism. Some political actors need to be better educated on this count.

We need to keep in mind that Pakistan has already in the past few years solicited answers from AQ Khan and handed those over to the IAEA as part of their inquiry into any past efforts of his network. A key to resolving the existing security dilemma plaguing this entire region is to keep the security dynamics contained within their current domains and not cause further complication through an unintended display of defiance against this global sensitivity even if it is proffered as a symbol of national pride and dignity.

What, however, should be of greater concern in this regard are any restrictive clauses that may impinge on Pakistan’s ability to develop her programme further in line with her evolutionary phases. That is where the information that any international agency may seek of Pakistan on suppliers of nuclear materials may become intrusive to Pakistan’s nuclear programme. While the captioned Nuclear Suppliers Group is bound by various instruments, any violation of the treaty, or an implicit definition of a dual-use capability can seriously limit Pakistan’s options. This is not so explicitly stated in the Bill, but through extension of the implied manifestations becomes a spanner of sorts in the works. If at all, that is what Pakistan needs to be most worried about and must take up in earnest with the US to amplify further the latent implications.

US Concern Over Nuclear Proliferation

The US concern was no doubt to ensure that Pakistan did not use its aid directly or indirectly to expand its nuclear proliferation programme through diversion of funds and budgetary juggling. As the eminent Pak observer expressed

There is another interesting clause too on the nuclear side that perhaps is too loosely worded. The US Secretary of State is required to certify in her routine reports that US assistance to Pakistan does not aid in the expansion of the Pakistani programme, and that Pakistan is not diverting resources off its own budgetary allocations to the programme from those non-nuclear activities that will be resourced through US assistance in the Bill. While there clearly is no threat of the former, the latter will have many finance experts scratching their heads for a long time. American interlocutors at the dialogue were at a loss to explain the intended process of verification.

Many analysts, following the furore in Pakistan, have wondered about the sagacity and the relevance of the language used in the Bill. Certainly Pakistan cannot be expected to open her budget ledgers to American auditors to certify allocations from within Pakistan’s own budgetary resources. The Americans understand that well. What they intended to achieve by inserting this clause, then, is anyone’s guess; perhaps a palliative to some legislators’ acute sensibilities? Or, importantly, another noose to tighten at an opportune moment and strangle Pakistan; or yet again, another exit instrument a la 1990, when all is done in pursuit of America’s own interests in the region? We will be better served to seek some clarifications on the looseness of the language used, enabling unhindered flexibility of interpretation to the US.

Cannot Be Defanged Now

In Mr Chaudhary’s opinion Pakistan cannot be defanged now. He says, “I, for one, do not subscribe to the notion that Pakistan can be defanged. It is a popular emotion, but hardly anchored in reality. If, and ever, Pakistan was to be dispossessed of her nuclear capability, it would only be possible with Pakistan’s own clear, free will. Once having achieved nuclear status, it is now beyond any nation to even remotely contemplate the possibility of physical neutralisation or control of this capability; Blackwater or any water not-withstanding. This notion too has the Americans at a loss, given our national proclivity to consider an American takeover of our nuclear arsenal as imminent. Sometimes, the force of emotion is too strong to be thwarted by logic and reason.

According to another prominent observer of Pakistan affair former military dictator Pervez Musharraf must be credited with no mean genius for seeing a golden opportunity to mint dollars by the billion where others only saw the threat held out by former US President George Bush after 9/11 when he made the offer that no one in Pakistan had the stomach to refuse: He had asked: “Are you with us or against us?” That Musharraf could shut so many military mouths for so long makes it clear that he was able to stuff them full of greenbacks. It took the Americans nearly a decade to figure out that they had been led up the garden path in the War Against Terror. Senators Kerry and Lugar have finally managed to turn America from sliding down a road marked with such abject stupidity.

View all Comments | | People liked it ( 0 ) : People dont liked it ( 0 ) : Article Viewed ( 151 )

Q1. Best tourist place in india

Answers options :

A. Himachal
B. J & K
C. Kerla