|
|
Conditional US aidThe POST, Fri, Dec,21, 2007.Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema
A report published in a Pakistan newspaper revealed that the aid package includes $300 million for military assistance and $350 for economic support. In addition the package also includes $50.9 million for development assistance, $39.8 million for Child survival and health, $32 million for anti-narcotic efforts, $10.3 million for anti-terrorism activities, and $2 million for training and education of military officers in the United States. The American aid is part of the five year $3.5 billion aid package that was announced in 2003 when President Musharraf visited Camp David presidential resort for a meeting with the American President George Bush. At the time there was no talk of any restriction but later when the Democrats secured majority in the Congress, voices to impose restriction were frequently aired. However the imposition of restrictions has now become attached to the release of aid package. Whether or not the President Bush signs the bill as it stands today or sends it back for modification or rejects it remains to be seen, but one thing is certain that it has invoked strong reaction among the Pakistanis. Out of $300 million meant for military assistance approved for Pakistan, $50 million would be withheld. This amount would only be released once the US Secretary of State submits a report stating that Pakistan is making progress in the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups and has taken steps to facilitate the advent of democracy in the country. While the Bush administration has indicated that it will issue the certificate authenticating the progress, the imposition of conditions has not gone down well among the Pakistanis. The government of Pakistan has not viewed the imposition of restriction favorably either. ‘Placing conditions will not serve the interests of Pak-US relations which are important for peace, stability, and progress in South Asian region’, stated the foreign office spokesman. Indeed it is going to have an adverse impact on overall relations with the US. The reaction among the analysts and ordinary public appears to be even more critical and stronger reflecting anger and disappointment with the Americans. Not only it reminded many of us the hated Pressler Amendment which required certification from both the Pakistani as well as the American heads of state to alleviate the American apprehensions, but many in Pakistan has now come to firmly believe that placing trust in the Americans support was a mistake. Many Pakistanis now view the Americans policy of de-hyphenating the relationships with India and Pakistan amounts to pressurizing Pakistan and violating its own laws in order to befriend India. To forge closer ties with India, the American went to the extent of destroying the well established NPT regime and ignoring its own laws that were passed in the 70s. Despite the international outcry, the American went ahead and signed the nuclear deal with India and in so doing they recognized implicitly the nuclear weapon status of India while denying it to Pakistan. The past assertions by the American leaders that this time the relations with Pakistan are going to be a lasting affair not only seem to be a myth but it is now demonstrating downward trends. Many are already interpreting that it the beginning of the discontinuation of the current American policy towards Pakistan. Following the end of war against the Soviet Union, the American did not take long to extricate themselves from their commitments to Pakistan. Admittedly the incumbent American administration is likely to continue supporting the Pakistan efforts against terrorism. Repeatedly the administration has openly acknowledged that Pakistan’s contributions in the war against terrorism has been massive and has openly appreciated such efforts. But the question that is being asked in many quarters revolves around the likely attitude of the next administration in US. The next administration may not be as realistic as the Bush administration has been especially with regard to war on terror. To attach any condition to the release of aid would indeed be viewed not just a pressure but a dictation and the Pakistanis are unlikely to accept any dictation. Given the existing anger against the Americans among the general public of Pakistan which is product of many factors, recent restrictions are more likely to exasperate and deteriorate the situation rather than to pay expected dividends. What the Americans need to comprehend is that the people of Pakistan cannot be motivated to undertake a particular course of action under pressure. One can get lot out of them through other means than pressurization. The restrictions and conditions invariably have impacted adversely. It would not be surprising for many of us that the people begin to view it as the fifth let down by the Americans. Indeed the history of Pak-American relations is studded with many American let downs. It is not too far fetched to assume that many in Pakistan consider the rider dealing with advent of democracy as interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan. Besides, many argue that Pakistan is already making progress towards the establishment of a true democratic regime. Not only Pakistan has already lifted emergency and restored the Constitution but the elections date has already been set for January 2008. At the moment electioneering appears to be at full swing. The election commission is already making arrangements deemed necessary for transparent and fair elections. Reports are also indicating that the government is not only ensuring the release of political workers but also making efforts to assist the Election Commission to hold smooth, free and fair elections. While one cannot deny the fact that some political parties have some reservations about the incumbent local bodies system but then one should also take into considerations that all the major parties have opted to participate in the elections. Linking aid cuts with matters that are deemed to be purely internal in nature is not a healthy pursuit. The demand of certifications reflects a certain amount of distrust. The distrust itself could impair and would adversely impact upon the efforts already undertaken in pursuit of a certain objective. Not only the relations between the two countries would be adversely being effected but the urge to put in best of efforts would decline. While the Americans have every right to pass their bills in any way they deem fit, they should take into considerations the likely impact of their policy pursuits would have on the target country and the sensitivities of the people involved.
|
|