By Logan Scisco
Since September 11, 2001, the Pakistani government has been a friend to the United States. Although Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) organization helped to establish the Taliban and was friendly to the Taliban government in Afghanistan, the Pakistani government under Pervez Musharraf made an about face after that date. Musharraf’s cooperation helped to secure billions of dollars in military and civilian aid for his country and also helped to silence Bush administration officials who might have otherwise been angry at the Musharraf regime’s handling of human rights issues (not to mention a lack of true democracy being practiced in the country).
In August 2008, Musharraf stepped down as President of Pakistan and was replaced by Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto. Under his leadership, the Pakistani government has gradually adopted a harder line on Islamic militants inside of the country (after first trying to accommodate them) and Pakistan’s resolve has been in contrast to the current U.S. position in Afghanistan that looks indecisive and shaky.
However, U.S. officials have always been wary of Pakistan. The army acts as an independent force from the government and has been known to meddle in political affairs. The army has participated in three coups against the Pakistani state. With this backdrop, U.S. officials have wanted to tighten conditions for aid that is sent to Pakistan and this is where the Kerry-Lugar bill, passed last month by Congress, comes into play. This brief will describe some motivations of the Kerry-Lugar bill, the Pakistani people’s reaction to it, and how it could damage US-Pakistani relations.
Motivations of the Bill
The motivation of the Kerry-Lugar bill, named after Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), is to provide more civilian aid to Pakistan but to make sure that the money is spent as the United States wants it to. Over the course of U.S. aid to Pakistan, which came first came into focus with President Reagan’s administration, who provided over $3 billion in aid to the country, criticism has mounted that the aid has not gone to the civilian population. To observers, the Pakistani government has squandered aid meant for the general population and either enriched itself or diverted it for military or bureaucratic purposes.
According to The Christian Science Monitor on October 8th, since the war on terrorism began under President Bush, the Pakistani government has received $15 billion in aid from the United States. Congressmen, typically those on the left side of the aisle, have long held that conditions need to be placed on this aid to conform to U.S. goals in the region.
Another criticism of the past U.S. aid to Pakistan is that it was centered more on the army than on the civilian population. Vice-President Joe Biden has advocated for a new approach that directs aid at civilians as opposed to the military. Due to security issues, the Bush administration poured more aid into the military than civilian construction and aid projects, enlarging Musharraf’s position in the country but damaging U.S. goodwill there.
To allay past criticisms of aid, the Kerry-Lugar bill triples U.S. aid to Pakistan by providing $7.5 billion in funding for non-military tasks. Pakistan’s military aid that they are currently receiving from the U.S. is not affected by this legislation. The Christian Science Monitor that was previously mentioned notes that in order to receive the aid, Hillary Clinton, the acting U.S. Secretary of State, must certify to Congress each year that Pakistan’s intelligence apparatus is not aiding terrorist groups, that the civilian government is overseeing military spending, that the military is not involved in civilian affairs, and vets how senior military officials are promoted.
Pakistani Response
Pakistan’s population may not have much goodwill against the terrorist organizations who have driven across its borders by the war in Afghanistan, but they believe that the Kerry-Lugar bill is a large affront to their efforts. With the violence in the country, it is little surprise that Pakistan was one of the more critical countries of Barack Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, arguing that he should not have won it because peace has not been brought to the conflict that is engulfing the region. To Pakistanis, the bill tries to undermine the country’s national sovereignty in dictating how the government should be run and how it should structure its affairs. John Kerry, on a trip to Pakistan, tried to inform the government that is not what the U.S. is trying to do, but it is hard when examining what the aims of the bill are that the U.S. has a small interest in Pakistani affairs.
Although the population was receptive to the bill at first, the military has raised significant concerns about the legislation and has been able to win over public opinion to its side. For the military, the bills amounts to a condemnation of its efforts in the war on terrorism and as The New York Times pointed out on October 13th, the army believes that its efforts against al-Qaeda are not being rewarded. Pakistani generals are complaining that as they are launching offensives in the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) and putting their soldiers and the government at risk, the United States is too busy stalling on crafting a solid strategy in Afghanistan. The Times pointed out that the army exercised significant influence over Pakistani foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi to complain to the U.S. about the aid package.
Some of these concerns from the Pakistani military have been addressed in an explanatory statement that the Senate still has to discuss. This statement is said to deal with the sovereignty concerns expressed by Pakistani political leaders and its military. Congressional leaders have also said that they did not intend for the act to be an affront to Pakistani sovereignty and it should not be interpreted as such. This should allay some Pakistani fears about the legislation, yet the amount of backpedalling by the Congress on this issue shows how much the U.S. needs Pakistan to accomplish its goals against al-Qaeda.
Damage to US-Pakistani Relations
One of the significant concerns about the legislation is that it attacks the Pakistani army at a vulnerable time. As the last section revealed, the Pakistani military is now engaged in rough fighting with al-Qaeda militants and just days ago launched an assault on their stronghold in South Waziristan. From the army’s point-of-view, they are holding their ground quite well and do not need Washington to direct its aims and actions. The Pakistani government also tends to get nervous when Washington makes statements fearing that the government is unstable, like it did earlier in the year when it warned that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal risked falling into the hands of extremist groups.
Also, the legislation likely exacerbated a split between the military and the civilian government in Pakistan. Pakistani general Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is quite popular after the army’s successful military offensives and is looking at having a longer tenure in office. Although Kayani is said to have no major political ambitions, he does not get along well with the Zardari government. Kayani has argued that if the U.S. pushes its plans under the bill then it would corrupt the army. The army prides itself in being one of the more organized institutions in Pakistan and awarding people for merit rather than political connections. Kayani believes that the civilian oversight called for in the legislation may curtail some of the better qualities of the army and endanger its standing among the people, which tends to be very favorable (especially when compared to other government institutions).
Al Jazeera wrote on October 14th that although the aid package was trying to close the “trust gap” between both countries, the aid package has only created some distrust between governments. Although Pakistan needs the economic aid, the Pakistani government does not want to oppose the army and risk more unpopularity with the public at large. However, U.S. officials are reportedly baffled that there was much of a fuss over the aid in the first place. Considering the Obama administration’s anger at surprises and being backed into corners, there will likely be some tension at future meetings with Pakistani leaders for putting America on the spot over its aid package and being somewhat ungrateful for the tripling of aid.
Overall, it appears as if the Kerry-Lugar bill has some great intentions and was designed to facilitate greater aid to the people of Pakistan. However, as with all good deeds, there can be a negative side effect as well and the negative here is that it has bruised the U.S.-Pakistani relationship, leading to suspicions that may hamper future cooperation.