fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
ANALYSIS: Dependence, denial and the battle ahead Abbas Rashid
Those who argue that we should reject the funds should not just stop there. It is astonishing that this argument is not accompanied by a strategy and a set of serious proposals to mobilise domestic resources, starting with the small but very privileged section of society
Now signed into law by the US president, the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act 2009, the Kerry-Lugar bill, comes at a very difficult time for Pakistan. Both state and society are under assault as the Taliban, including those from Southern Punjab, make a determined bid to cause mayhem and spread terror.
On Thursday, in a series of attacks that ranged across the country, the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan targeted security-related sites and personnel, killing scores, including many civilians. Lahore, the provincial capital, saw the worst of it with an attack on three different sites within the space of less than an hour. Security forces did well to bring the situation rapidly under control. The military too had been quick to respond to the attack on the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi a few days earlier.
But what is abundantly clear from these attacks, and the obviously unimpaired ability of the militants to penetrate even key security sites, is the grave nature of the threat that we have to deal with in the coming week and months. As the military gears up for a full-fledged assault to eliminate terrorist bases in South Waziristan, these attacks have intensified and are meant to serve the purpose of deterrence. While the TTP and the others holed up in the area are unlikely to withstand a determined push by the military, many of the terrorists will disperse to other areas. This is also the time, then, to carefully work out the transition from counter-insurgency to counter-terrorism, which will be a longer-term enterprise.
However, at this point, the nation is seized with the issue of the Kerry-Lugar bill. A few key aspects of the bill need to be noted. The $7.5 billion under the Act is meant for education, health, infrastructure and other development-related programmes over a period of five years. No part of this amount is meant for military assistance. That is to be separately worked out on a year-to-year basis. The military, though, will soon receive from the US 18 upgraded F-16s that come with a substantial price tag.
However, conditionalities in the bill do apply to certain forms of military assistance yet to be worked out. Essentially, the US Congress through these conditions directs the US administration to ensure objectives such as non-proliferation, civilian oversight of the military and effective monitoring of expenditure to guard against diversion to other uses. However, most of these concerns are already well known and putting them in the bill was superfluous at best and in some cases provocative. US legislators, who should have known better, and an over-zealous Indian caucus in the House wanting to do its bit have together managed to create an unwarranted crisis. Of course, we should have made an issue of some of the language used much earlier to influence the drafting but failed to do so.
At this end, the more worrisome issue is that of the mode, the timing and the tone employed by the army high command to convey its displeasure over the bill. The criticism came only after the bill had been sent up by the Congress for signing and the prime minister had lauded it as a major success. Rather than being taken up at the forum of the Defence Coordination Committee, for instance, the concern was made public in the form of an ISPR press release in the aftermath of a corps commanders conference. And the wording of the message clearly put the government in an embarrassing position: the forum expressed serious concern regarding clauses impacting on National Security...
That it came after a meeting between Chief Minister Punjab Shahbaz Sharif, the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani has had the effect, intended or not, of generating speculation about how long the government will last. Whatever the deficiencies of the government and the nature of the differences between key stakeholders, this is not the time to be pulling in different directions. As has become obvious again in the last few days, and this after a successful military operation in Swat and Malakand, we are confronted by a ruthless enemy that retains the capacity to hit out with considerable frequency, across the country and against a range of targets. It will not be easily defeated. And certainly not by a house divided against itself.
The explanatory note that now accompanies the bill is obviously not part of the text and as such is of no legal consequence. However, the Act itself is a piece of US legislation with Pakistan as the intended beneficiary. It is not a treaty or contract between the two countries. The conditions do not apply to the development aid under the bill. And, Pakistan has the option of simply refusing to accede to any intrusive demand by the US that it finds unacceptable. If the US as a consequence chooses to stop the assistance, so be it. However, in line with the demand from various quarters, it is for parliament to determine whether funds under this Act are to be accepted.
Meanwhile, those who argue that we should reject the funds should not just stop there. It is astonishing that this argument is not accompanied by a strategy and a set of serious proposals to mobilise domestic resources, starting with the small but very privileged section of society. Are we finally ready for an agricultural income tax? Are our industrialists willing to pay the taxes actually due from them? Is our military elite willing to compromise on the standards and style to which it has become accustomed? Clearly there is much that we will need to add to this list.
Abbas Rashid lives in Lahore and can be contacted at abbasrh***********
Those who argue that we should reject the funds should not just stop there. It is astonishing that this argument is not accompanied by a strategy and a set of serious proposals to mobilise domestic resources, starting with the small but very privileged section of society
Now signed into law by the US president, the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act 2009, the Kerry-Lugar bill, comes at a very difficult time for Pakistan. Both state and society are under assault as the Taliban, including those from Southern Punjab, make a determined bid to cause mayhem and spread terror.
On Thursday, in a series of attacks that ranged across the country, the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan targeted security-related sites and personnel, killing scores, including many civilians. Lahore, the provincial capital, saw the worst of it with an attack on three different sites within the space of less than an hour. Security forces did well to bring the situation rapidly under control. The military too had been quick to respond to the attack on the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi a few days earlier.
But what is abundantly clear from these attacks, and the obviously unimpaired ability of the militants to penetrate even key security sites, is the grave nature of the threat that we have to deal with in the coming week and months. As the military gears up for a full-fledged assault to eliminate terrorist bases in South Waziristan, these attacks have intensified and are meant to serve the purpose of deterrence. While the TTP and the others holed up in the area are unlikely to withstand a determined push by the military, many of the terrorists will disperse to other areas. This is also the time, then, to carefully work out the transition from counter-insurgency to counter-terrorism, which will be a longer-term enterprise.
However, at this point, the nation is seized with the issue of the Kerry-Lugar bill. A few key aspects of the bill need to be noted. The $7.5 billion under the Act is meant for education, health, infrastructure and other development-related programmes over a period of five years. No part of this amount is meant for military assistance. That is to be separately worked out on a year-to-year basis. The military, though, will soon receive from the US 18 upgraded F-16s that come with a substantial price tag.
However, conditionalities in the bill do apply to certain forms of military assistance yet to be worked out. Essentially, the US Congress through these conditions directs the US administration to ensure objectives such as non-proliferation, civilian oversight of the military and effective monitoring of expenditure to guard against diversion to other uses. However, most of these concerns are already well known and putting them in the bill was superfluous at best and in some cases provocative. US legislators, who should have known better, and an over-zealous Indian caucus in the House wanting to do its bit have together managed to create an unwarranted crisis. Of course, we should have made an issue of some of the language used much earlier to influence the drafting but failed to do so.
At this end, the more worrisome issue is that of the mode, the timing and the tone employed by the army high command to convey its displeasure over the bill. The criticism came only after the bill had been sent up by the Congress for signing and the prime minister had lauded it as a major success. Rather than being taken up at the forum of the Defence Coordination Committee, for instance, the concern was made public in the form of an ISPR press release in the aftermath of a corps commanders conference. And the wording of the message clearly put the government in an embarrassing position: the forum expressed serious concern regarding clauses impacting on National Security...
That it came after a meeting between Chief Minister Punjab Shahbaz Sharif, the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani has had the effect, intended or not, of generating speculation about how long the government will last. Whatever the deficiencies of the government and the nature of the differences between key stakeholders, this is not the time to be pulling in different directions. As has become obvious again in the last few days, and this after a successful military operation in Swat and Malakand, we are confronted by a ruthless enemy that retains the capacity to hit out with considerable frequency, across the country and against a range of targets. It will not be easily defeated. And certainly not by a house divided against itself.
The explanatory note that now accompanies the bill is obviously not part of the text and as such is of no legal consequence. However, the Act itself is a piece of US legislation with Pakistan as the intended beneficiary. It is not a treaty or contract between the two countries. The conditions do not apply to the development aid under the bill. And, Pakistan has the option of simply refusing to accede to any intrusive demand by the US that it finds unacceptable. If the US as a consequence chooses to stop the assistance, so be it. However, in line with the demand from various quarters, it is for parliament to determine whether funds under this Act are to be accepted.
Meanwhile, those who argue that we should reject the funds should not just stop there. It is astonishing that this argument is not accompanied by a strategy and a set of serious proposals to mobilise domestic resources, starting with the small but very privileged section of society. Are we finally ready for an agricultural income tax? Are our industrialists willing to pay the taxes actually due from them? Is our military elite willing to compromise on the standards and style to which it has become accustomed? Clearly there is much that we will need to add to this list.
Abbas Rashid lives in Lahore and can be contacted at abbasrh***********
