Turf Wars

Why Pakistan's military hates America's new aid package.

BY AYESHA SIDDIQA | OCTOBER 14, 2009

Pakistani army chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani

To the surprise of many Americans, Pakistan does not seem too excited at the prospect of receiving U.S. aid. The conditions in the Kerry-Lugar bill, which would provide Pakistan with $7.5 billion in economic aid over the next five years, have been derided by Pakistani opposition parties as "humiliating." The Pakistani daily Dawn even reported that Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, will be replaced due to his role in negotiating the bill. The armed forces are also not too pleased with the assistance package. Last week, the military high command urged the civilian government to review the aid package and the conditions that Islamabad must meet to qualify for receiving financial assistance. The generals would like the government of President Asif Ali Zardari to renegotiate the deal with Washington. If they do not, many in Pakistan think relations between the civilian government and the military might get tense.

The military's discomfort relates to the conditions in the bill that appear to infringe on aspects of government where it has traditionally held sway. Apparently, Pakistan will have to ensure that it provides information on and possible access to people like A.Q. Khan, the infamous nuclear scientist accused of helping countries such as Libya develop their nuclear weapons programs. It will have to show evidence of eliminating all terrorist networks, including Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad, which are traditionally considered as part of the war in Kashmir rather than the war in Afghanistan. Finally, Islamabad will have to satisfy Washington regarding civilian control of the military. These conditions are bound to make the military uncomfortable because they are seen as affecting issues in the military's exclusive domain.

 The Kerry-Lugar bill contains conditions pertaining to civilian control over senior-level promotions in the armed forces and control of the military budget, which clearly aim at defanging the military of its ability to keep its affairs away from the eyes of civilian leaders. Many from the larger security community argue that such conditions are intrusive and tantamount to U.S. involvement in Pakistan's internal affairs. The generals would certainly be uncomfortable with a situation in which relations between Pakistan and the United States developed into a private affair between Washington and Pakistan's civilian rulers. After all, the only possible mechanism to meet the aforementioned conditionality regarding civilian control will depend on information being provided by Pakistan's civilian government to the U.S. administration.

The discomfort becomes intense also because the military and some segments of civil society are not comfortable with stronger civilian control of the military at a time when the credibility of the top political leadership appears questionable. Some people fear that Zardari, popularly known at home as Mr. Ten Percent because of his alleged penchant for corruption, would use his power to turn the country into his fiefdom. A Pew Research Center poll released in August found that only 32 percent of Pakistanis held a favorable view of Zardari. For the military, the other candidates for political leadership are also no different.

But this is not the only bone of contention. The generals could also be unhappy about the restrictions placed on their ability to manipulate nonstate actors, especially those militant groups that are used against India. Their possible gripe is that the bill represents a reversal of a previous silent understanding, whereby Pakistan aided the United States in rounding up al Qaeda leaders in return for being allowed to handle the Taliban and certain other militant groups on their own. The references to Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad indicate an improvement of India-U.S. relations at the expense of the Pakistan-U.S. alliance. Islamabad fears that Washington has allowed India free reign in Afghanistan, which the latter is using to its advantage against Pakistan. There is also a widespread belief that many Taliban, especially those creating terror in Pakistan, are aided by Indian intelligence.

 

John Moore/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: PAKISTAN, AFPAK CHANNEL
 

Ayesha Siddiqa is an independent political analyst and writer. She is author of Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan's Military Economy.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

MARY BOIES

7:26 AM ET

October 15, 2009

Pakistan Push-Back on Kerry Lugar is Understandable

It isn't only the Pakistan military that objects to the Title 2 conditions in Kerry Lugar. Their business community and other informed, ordinary citizens object, and understandably so. I agree that Congress should tie funds to specific purposes -- such as "training, equipping and operating against terrorist groups" -- coupled with tough oversight and sanctions or holdbacks for non-compliance. But the legislation takes a far different -- even insulting -- tack, at a time when Pakistani cooperation is critical to our success in the region.

Three Examples: the Government of Pakistan must make progress on "ceasing support ... to extremist and terrorist groups." (Sec. 203(c)(2)(A)) Pakistanis rightly point out that this amounts to a declaration that they have supported such groups in the past. This may be true but it is an unnecessary admission they certainly will not make. Two. KL requires certification that Pakistan has ceased support for terrorist groups by "any elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agency."(Same Sec. 203 provision) Certification would require close inquiry into the conduct of "any elements" of the ISI and of course Pakistan objects to this. Three. Pakistan is required to take "action when provided with intelligence about high-level terrorist targets". (Sec. 203(c)(2)(B)). Again a desirable result, but requiring the Pakistani military to act on our intelligence when they think it wrong does not advance the objective.

Pakistan has misdirected our military assistance in the past, so strict guidelines are necessary. But our objective is to work with the Pakistan military to defeat terrorist groups. Whatever the past, they need to be our partners. Why make them cringe and grovel?

 

PRITZ29

7:05 PM ET

October 15, 2009

A Necessay Change in Aid Policy.

One of the significant problems which arise from state-to-state aid, is a lack of assurance over how the money is spent with regards to desired objectives and outcomes. The Kerry-Lugar perhaps provide the necessary conditions and sticks, which for too long have been limited in their scope. After recieving another IMF loan, and now it seems more financial aid from the U.S (which has been a generous donor for many years), we still can not see the assidious efforts of the pakistani 'civilian' government and military/intelligence reaching a standard whereby the threat of terrorism is under their control. For too long, the U.S has allowed Pakistan to willingly accept all the carrots dangled, but shun the sticks.

The threat of terrorism, has been incompetently handled by the tri-partite of power in Pakistan, all the while American aid has been assured for the ruling regime. The military inertia towards the growing threat of insurgencies, derives largely due to the strategic onus being on de-stabilising India-via-Kashmir, and limiting their geo-political influence. The U.S.A has hitherto has been restrained and relatively unpressuring considering the circumstance. Neither can the U.S.A confidently say Pakistan is an unquestionable American allie, the populace of Pakistan is resonantly anti-American. In addition to the bellicose of hatred for what the view as imperial hubris, is the longstanding (dare I say entreched) 'umbilical-cord' relationship it shares with China.

One part of the U.S revising its strategy in South Asia was re-engaging with India, another important caveat is dealing with Pakistan, and ensuring they come true with some of the promised commitments. The Kerry-Lugar pact could assure people that American is not throwing money at a lost cause nor a failed state (yet). America arguaby demonstrated its nice side when it treated AQ Khan-former head of Pakistans nuclear programme, with much impunity. Kerry-Lugar illustrates American frustration and discontent at a country, in which recently terror attacks are seemingly ubiquitos. It may be the rights measure, if only it is not too late already.

 

PAKAFFAIRS

8:01 PM ET

October 15, 2009

Kill Bill - Not eating this carrot when knowing there is a stick

Pakistanis (excluding the foreign supported regime) still are figuring out how this bill helps Pakistan? At the end of the day there is no clear answer, and the more you read it the more it sounds like a huge bribe to Pakistani Administration ruling the country to freely meddle in its internal affairs. Under historical context there will be no accountability on its spending.Someones coffers will be filled and the cases will be dropped for political reasons.

Situation in Afghanistan and a sworn enemy Hindustan (aka India) have largely contributed to the existing mess in Pakistan today. And I am not blaming them but blaming Pakistanis themselves as they let their greedy "leaders" succumb to bribes and aid while compromising on national interest.

Without going into details Pakistan on its own is fully capable of taking care of these issues single handedly, provided there are no foreign requests and policy play. Such aid packages are precisely the reason that Pakistan is not able to freely resort to its own policies which are only in Pakistan's national interest rather than other foreign players.

As a Pakistani myself I duly reject this aid. Like many others I am willing to eat grass to survive but will not accept any compromise on our national security. Our human and natural resources are in abundance, so much so that not only we can indigenously support the country and its infrastructure but export it too.

I mean no offense to Americans, unlike what media says we do LOVE America and Americans for what they stand for and for what they are. Its just some of its policies that we do not agree with which does not translate to hating the country as a whole. Americans are a hard working people and nation. The status they achieved was due to their own hard work and resolve and not "aids" from anyone. We want to do the same as Pakistanis.