Pak-US Relationship

[Neo]

Ex-Pakistani leader Musharraf defiant in Houston

By HARVY RICE Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle
Oct. 10, 2009

Pakistan's former President Pervez Musharraf struck a defiant note in a speech Saturday in Houston, saying the United States should contribute money, but not advice, to his country's counterterrorism efforts.

The U.S. should assist as Pakistan tries to root out the Taliban and al-Qaida from within its borders, “but don't get into micromanaging how to do it because we know how to do it better than you,” he said.

In an address sponsored by the World Affairs Counsel of Houston, Musharraf issued a stinging critique of U.S. conduct in neighboring Afghanistan and gave the 700 listeners at the Omni Hotel his formula for defeating the Taliban.

Several dozen protesters stood about a half-block from the hotel on the nearest public property waving signs accusing the former president of being a dictator. Musharraf, a military general, assumed power in 1999 in a bloodless coup d'état and resigned in August last year under threats of impeachment by a coalition government.

In Houston, he received a standing ovation and one man shouted, “We love you!”

After ticking off the economic advances he said Pakistan made under his rule, the former military strongman said that his country didn't need outside help to become an economic powerhouse.

“I am a firm believer that Pakistan is a country that has the resources and human capital to rise on its own with no assistance from anybody in the world,” he said to applause from an audience filled with Pakistani expatriates.

He said the U.S. and Pakistan created the mujahedeen, or holy warriors, who flocked to Afghanistan in the 1980s to throw off the Soviet invaders. But the U.S. abandoned 35,000 mujahedeen fighters after the Soviets were driven out, and they formed the nucleus of what would become al-Qaida, he said.

The United States made a mistake when it refused to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government, throwing away a chance to influence them and paving the way for al-Qaida to become influential, Musharraf said.

The United States also erred by allowing the Northern Alliance, made up of ethnic minorities, to gain influence in the post-Taliban government instead of making more concessions to the Pashtun majority, he said.

He said the U.S. government must have representatives with close ties to the Pashtun if it hopes to make any headway in bringing stability to Afghanistan. As for al-Qaida, only military force can root it out, he said.

Musharraf's advice comes as President Barack Obama is deciding whether to change strategy in Afghanistan, where the U.S. has had troops since 2002.

Musharraf also urged Pakistan to combat what he said was a minority of religious radicals who are perverting Islam. He said suicide bombers were poor and illiterate and had been brainwashed into believing that suicide bombing would ensure them an idyllic afterlife.

“Suicide bombing is not Islamic, it is not religious,” Musharraf said to applause.

[Neo]

Obama signs KLB into law

Thursday, October 15, 2009

WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama signed a 7.5 billion dollar Kerry-Lugar aid package bill for Pakistan into law Thursday, after Congress offered assurances the plan did not violate Pakistani sovereignty.

Obama signed the bill, which has come under fierce criticism in Pakistan, without fanfare before leaving on a trip to New Orleans.

"This law is the tangible manifestation of broad support for Pakistan in the U.S., as evidenced by its bipartisan, bicameral, unanimous passage in Congress," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Obama signed the legislation after his administration and U.S. lawmakers sought to allay concerns in Pakistan over conditions linked to billions of dollars in U.S. aid, while making clear the legislation would not be changed.

Gibbs said Obama wants to engage Pakistan on the basis of a strategic partnership "grounded in support for Pakistan’s democratic institutions and the Pakistani people."

"This act formalizes that partnership, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through sustainable economic development, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and combating the extremism that threatens Pakistan and the United States," he said.

It also came hours after the latest wave of attacks on the Pakistani police force by militants who killed 40 people, underscoring the insurgent challenge to the government the US package is intended to help meet.

"This law is the tangible manifestation of broad support for Pakistan in the US, as evidenced by its bipartisan, bicameral, unanimous passage in Congress," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

The package is intended to bolster Pakistan's battle against extremism as it faces the increasingly bloody domestic insurgency and has been placed by Obama at the center of the US battle against Al-Qaeda.

The measure offers 1.5 billion dollars a year for five years to improve Pakistani schools, to fund groups that defend the rights of women and children, and money to train and modernize the Pakistani peace force.

It also includes an attempt to cement civilian control in nuclear-armed Pakistan, and supports voter education, civil society and improvements in the functioning of parliament.

But opponents in Pakistan balked at what they saw as conditions on how the money could be spent, including calls for action in curtailing the anti-Indian militant movements Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

The bill also called for a cut-off in security assistance if Pakistan fails to crack down on extremists.

The requirements sparked uproar in the Pakistani parliament, and were used by opponents of the government's anti-terror alliance with the United States to hammer President Asif Ali Zardari.

Fears for the package's future were quelled when Senator John Kerry and Representative Howard Berman, who head committees handling foreign relations in Congress, gave Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi a document stating that the plan did not impose conditions or infringe on Pakistani sovereignty.

Qureshi, after huddling Wednesday with Kerry and Berman for the third time since last week, hailed the document as "historic" and "a step forward in our relationship."

"I am going back to Pakistan to tell my parliament and conclude the debate on the note that our relationship can move forward -- we will deepen it and we will strengthen it," Qureshi told reporters.

The lawmakers' statement said the aid was meant "to forge a closer collaborative relationship between Pakistan and the United States, not to dictate the national policy or impinge on the sovereignty of Pakistan in any way."

"Any interpretation of this act which suggests that the United States does not fully recognize and respect the sovereignty of Pakistan would be directly contrary to congressional intent," it said.

Obama signed the bill hours after militants unleashed coordinated attacks on Pakistani police in which 40 people died, storming offices in Lahore and bombing a northwest station to escalate 11 days of carnage.

The coordinated assaults underscored the power of armed radicals to strike in the heart of Pakistan, and the weakness of poorly equipped security forces, despite promises of a new offensive against the Taliban.

Pakistan is reeling from two years of Taliban-linked attacks that have escalated such that over 160 people have been killed since October 5.

[Neo]

US aid to reach $19.96 bn next year

Friday, October 16, 2009

LAHORE: The United States has provided over $16.36 billion in overt aid to Pakistan from 2001 to 2009, while an additional unconcealed aid request amounting to $3.6 billion for 2010 would help this figure rest at $19.96 billion next year, the American Congressional Research Service statistics updated till end September 2009 reveal.

The US aid estimates for 2010 do not include ‘under-debate’ $1.5 billion per annum Kerry-Lugar grant approved for Pakistan by the US Congress.According to the American Congressional Research Service tabulation, Pakistan received $92 million in 2001-2002 from the US, which chiefly comprised food aid ($88 million) and assistance for narcotics control and border security ($4 million).

In 2002-2003, the aid figure shot up to $3.779 billion, the highest American aid received by Pakistan during the decade under review. This figure included security-related assistance of $2.851 billion and economy-related funding of $928 million.

In 2004, total US aid influx into Pakistan nosedived to $1.114 billion, which comprised security related funding of $818 million and economy-related assistance of $296 million.In 2005, the US aid figure surged to $1.701 billion, which included $1.313 billion and $388 million for security and economy-related purposes respectively.

In 2006, the aid figure again rose to $1.799 billion, which included $1.260 billion for security and $539 million economy-related purposes. In 2007, the American aid influx into Pakistan dipped slightly from the preceding year to rest at $1.703 billion. This constituted $1.127 billion and $576 million for security and economy, respectively.

In 2008, the US aid for Pakistan once again soared to $1.991 billion. The break-up for this year showed $1.484 billion earmarked for security, while $507 million was allocated for economy.

In 2009, no less than $3.352 billion has flown into Pakistan as aid from Washington. The allocation for security this year rests at $1.989 billion, while that for economic-related purposes stands at $1.363 billion. While funding under a few heads this year has been requirement-based, the counter-narcotics allocation includes a “bridge” appropriation of $37 million and a supplemental appropriation of $10 million.

The fiscal 2010 aid request of $3.6 billion is bound to be the highest during the eventful decade under review. This would constitute a $2.498 billion funding for Pakistan’s security and $1.102 billion for economic purposes.

It is pertinent to note that the US aid flowing into Pakistan during these last nine years includes the Counter-Narcotics Funds (Pentagon budget), the Coalition Support Funds (Pentagon budget), the Child Survival and Health, Development Assistance, the Economic Support Funds, aid for the Frontier Corps training and equipment, the Foreign Military Financing, Human Rights and Democracy Funds, International Disaster Assistance, International Military Education and Training, International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (includes border security), Migration and Refugee Assistance, Non-proliferation, Anti-Terrorism, De-mining, and Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (Pentagon budget).

The Coalition Support Fund is a Pentagon funding to reimburse Pakistan for its support to US military operations. It is not officially designated as foreign assistance, but is counted as such by many analysts. Congress had authorised Pakistan to use the FY 2003 and FY 2004 ESF allocations to cancel a total of about $1.5 billion in concessional debt to Pakistan. Meanwhile, the US food aid does not include freight costs.

[Neo]

Private Pakistani delegation lands in Washington

Wed, 10/21/2009

A Pakistani delegation representing the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs is in Washington this week to deliver its report to D.C. academics, think tankers, and officials. The mission is to inform American policymakers on the Pakistani perspective on a range of issues prominent in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, including the impact of the Kerry-Lugar aid bill, nuclear stability, and the ongoing problems of terrorism and insurgency.
undefined

The delegation is composed of several senior Pakistani policymakers and former officials, including retired Lt. Gen. Talat Masood, a former secretary for defense production, retired Maj. Gen. Mahmud Durrani, former national security advisor and the previous ambassador to the U.S. (shown at left in 2008 with Sen. John Kerry and Pakistani Foreign Minster Shah Mehmood Qureshi), Ambassador Aziz Ahmed Khan, a former envoy to India and former ambassador to Afghanistan, Ahmer Bilal Soofi, a lawyer representing clients before the Supreme Court of Pakistan who appeared in the A.Q. Khan case, and Ejaz Haider, op-ed editor for Pakistan's Daily Times.

Pugwash, which won the Nobel Prize in 1995, has a mission to foster dialogue in the hopes of "reducing the danger of armed conflict and seeking cooperative solutions for global problems." Toward that end, here are some excerpts of the report on Pakistani views and attitudes they are presenting around town:

On the U.S.-Pakistan relationship:

There is widespread resentment in Pakistan toward the U.S.; Pakistanis are cognizant that the lack of trust is mutual. At the root of this resentment is the U.S. role in the Afghan Jihad... There is skepticism about the way in which [the] U.S. is conducting its campaign in Afghanistan... The perception is that U.S. heavy handedness has dictated Pakistan's policy and it has often not been in Pakistan's own interests. The problems of the insurgency in Pakistan are deemed to be distinct from the corresponding problems in Afghanistan. Pakistan wants to decide itself how to deal with the insurgency in its own territory and what its priorities should be.

The U.S.' view of itself as a domestic player in [Pakistan's] internal politics, especially its perceived influence on successive Pakistani governments is not welcomed. Excessive visibility to U.S. official presence in Pakistan is received equally negatively... There is a general perception that Pakistan's portrayal in the U.S. media and popular discourse is exceptionally negative... It is believed that U.S. officials understand Pakistan's concerns but often turn a blind eye to the negative publicity Islamabad receives as a means to maintain pressure on Pakistan.

On President Obama's Af-Pak strategy:

The Af-Pak terminology is disliked and has received strong criticism across Pakistan. The Pakistani intelligentsia is not pleased with a de-hyphenation of the Indo-Pak equation and the hyphenation of the Pak-Afghan calculus. The issue is not only one of national pride; there is a genuine concern among the strategic enclave that the permanence of the threat from India has not eroded.,, There is objectively no interest for Pakistan to be fully involved in what is happening outside its borders, namely in Afghanistan.

On the Pakistani government's relationship with extremists:

Compromises with the Taliban and the militants in general are possible, provided that the end result is improvement of living conditions for the civilians. A generalized military confrontation is not the solution according to most Pakistan experts... This points to the need for effective military operations, for a distinction to be drawn between different militant outfits, and to deal with different policy measures depending on the group in question. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not the same entity and Pakistani policy makers insist on a distinction here.

On the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons:

The reality of the matter is that all nuclear weapons (irrespective of the country possessing them) are intrinsically insecure. In comparative terms, why should Pakistani nuclear weapons be more insecure than others?... Pakistani nuclear weapons are India-specific, namely they are an answer to India's nuclear arsenal. Anything like the deployment of Indian Ballistic Missile Defense systems or expansion of the Indian nuclear weapons program will destabilize the situation... The nuclear issue has to be dealt with regionally, with India taking the lead.

A perception has developed that the U.S. may prepare contingency plans to take out the Pakistani nuclear weapons. The reluctance on the part of the U.S. to deny such plans is problematic.

[Neo]

Pakistan Market Bombing Kills 44 as Clinton Arrives for Talks

Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- At least 44 people were killed and 100 injured by a bombing in a crowded Pakistani market as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began her first official visit to the country to support the fight against terrorism.

“Bodies are scattered and badly burned because of a fire caused by the explosion,” Mohammed Naeem, a spokesman for the Edhi Ambulance Service said today by telephone from Peshawar, the site of the explosion.

Pakistan’s military is engaged in a campaign to rout Islamic militants from strongholds in South Waziristan along the porous border with Afghanistan. The almost two-week assault has sparked retaliatory suicide bombings and assaults that have claimed more than 150 lives before today’s attack, prompting tight security and secrecy around Clinton’s visit.

Clinton, arriving in Islamabad on a three-day visit, is seeking to douse tension that flared this month over perceived conditions attached to a new U.S. assistance bill and back a military offensive against Taliban militants who have carried out suicide attacks.

“We are turning the page on what had been in the past several years primarily a security, anti-terrorism agenda,” Clinton told reporters traveling with her. While security remains “our highest priority,” she said she’ll highlight U.S. support for the civilian government and initiatives on energy and economic development.

Praising the resolve of authorities in fighting insurgents, she said it is “important for Americans and others to recognize the high price the Pakistanis are paying” in civilian, police and military casualties in battling allies of al-Qaeda.

Army Anger

Clinton traveled to Islamabad less than two weeks after a visit to Washington by Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi. He conveyed the anger of Pakistan’s military establishment, government opponents and media over perceived strings attached to a $1.5 billion annual U.S. aid package passed by Congress last month.

“It is unfortunate that there are those who question our motives who are perhaps skeptical that we are going to be there for the long term,â€

“There is misunderstanding,” Clinton said. “These aren’t conditions on Pakistan so much as they are metrics for measuring whether we think our aid is being productive.”

The bill requires the Secretary of State to certify civilian control of Pakistan’s military, cooperation with counter-terrorism, protection of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and compliance with international non-proliferation standards.

Defense Bill

An unrelated U.S. defense bill passed last week requires the secretaries of State and Defense to report to Congress on whether payments to Pakistan are spent in line with U.S. interests and not diverted to military spending against India.

Clinton’s visit -- to include meetings with tribal elders, women, journalists, civic leaders and government officials in Islamabad and Lahore -- is intended to dispel fears the U.S. will abandon the region when counterterrorism objectives are accomplished.

Polls show a majority of Pakistanis disapprove of U.S. policy, especially unmanned air strikes on suspected insurgent hideouts in tribal regions. Strong anti-American sentiment could “jeopardize the U.S. ability to partner with Pakistan effectively,” said Lisa Curtis, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington.

The Kerry-Lugar-Berman civilian aid bill signed this month by President Barack Obama authorizes $7.5 billion over five years for road construction, schools, power facilities and livelihood projects. It’s in addition to about $7.6 billion in U.S. military payments to reimburse Pakistan for counterterrorism spending since 2001.

Obama’s Challenge

Obama is weighing how to address a worsening regional insurgency eight years after the Sept. 11 terror attack on the U.S. and the retreat of its architects into tribal areas along the Pakistan-Afghan border. Pakistani authorities may raise their concern with Clinton that U.S. and NATO-led forces in Afghanistan must not abandon frontier posts lest militants seek haven on either side.

In the Afghan capital of Kabul today, gunmen stormed a United Nations guesthouse and killed six UN workers in an attack the Taliban said was aimed at disrupting next month’s Afghan presidential runoff election. Eight more U.S. troops killed by bombings in Afghanistan made October the deadliest month for the U.S. since its 2001 invasion.

Since May, the Pakistani army has cracked down on extremists who previously enjoyed some support from authorities. That has sparked an internal refugee crisis, suicide bombings on busy streets, assaults on military bases and the assassination of an army brigadier this month. The attacks have diminished public sympathy for religious extremists.

Disengagement

Asked if Pakistani security services had ceased to collaborate with militant groups they have sponsored as proxies in skirmishes with India, Clinton said, “We are constantly assessing that, because it remains a concern.”

Still, “the level of cooperation that we have received from the Pakistani military and intelligence services has increased geometrically” since Obama took office in January, she said.

“Nine months is not a lot of time to turn around a relationship that has a lot of scars,” Clinton said. The secretary acknowledged the U.S. helped create Muslim militias known as the mujahadeen in the 1980s and then abandoned the region after the Soviets were driven out.

To contact the reporter on this story: Indira Lakshmanan in Islamabad at ilakshmanan@bloomberg.net

[Neo]

Clinton seeks to bolster troubled Pakistan

Christophe Schmidt
Wed Oct 28, 2009

ISLAMABAD (AFP) – US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton kicked off talks in Pakistan on Wednesday, as a car bomb ripped through a crowded market in the northwest city of Peshawar killing at least four people.

Clinton, promising new investments while fending off bitter criticism of Washington's policies from within the anti-terror ally, arrived just hours before the blast that also wounded at least 35.

"It was a huge bomb blast, heard in almost all the city," police official Anwar Shah told AFP by telephone.

Clinton is the most senior US official to visit the nuclear-armed Muslim state since US President Barack Obama put Pakistan at the heart of the fight against Al-Qaeda and made the war in neighbouring Afghanistan a top priority.

"We are turning a page on what has been in the last several years primarily a security anti-terrorist agenda," Clinton told reporters travelling with her.

"It remains a very high priority. But we also recognise that it's imperative that we broaden our engagement with Pakistan," she added, pledging that the United States wanted to "strengthen democracy" and civilian institutions.

Her arrival comes at a critical juncture for Pakistan, where a rising number of audacious attacks has shown Al-Qaeda and Taliban-linked extremists can target anyone at anytime, and with the military pressing a major offensive.

The Pakistan-US alliance can be uneasy particularly among the general public in both countries. The United States, which is heavily committed in Afghanistan, relies on Pakistan for regional stability and to fight militants.

Pakistan, whose government is cash-strapped and the economy battered, relies on US cash and weapons to fight against extremism and militancy.

Clinton acknowledged there can be "misunderstanding" and "miscommunications", but stressed that the Obama administration was committed to building a long-term relationship with the troubled country.

"Nine months is not a long period of time to turn around a relationship that has a lot of scars," Clinton told reporters.

"It's fair to say that we have really increased the level of conversation and sharing of information over nine months," Clinton said.

The United States is keen to bolster the civilian government, whose relations with the powerful military have been fraught, following on from a massive 7.5 billion dollar non-military aid package already signed into law.

The military and political opposition slammed the package -- designed to help Pakistan fight Islamist insurgency by building schools, training police and strengthening democracy -- for allegedly violating Pakistan's sovereignty.

Clinton said she was "concerned" by the opposition and reiterated that the bill imposed no conditions on Pakistan, pledging further assistance. Related article: Suicide bombers in Pakistan

"We will be making some announcements about some of the investments we are making with Pakistan on the civilian side," she added referring to jobs, reliable sources of energy, education and healthcare.

Around 30,000 troops are pressing an assault against Pakistani Taliban fighters holed up in South Waziristan, part of the tribal belt on the Afghan border where US officials say Al-Qaeda is plotting attacks on the West.

Clinton said it was "important to recognise the high price the Pakistanis are paying" in the war on Islamist militancy.

"They (the military) are extraordinarily committed and we have to support them the way we can," said Clinton, who is expected to meet some of the more than 200,000 people who have been displaced by the latest offensive.

But another area of concern is nuclear proliferation. The United States has warned that the reputed father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, is still a proliferation risk after being given freedom of movement.

"We want to encourage Pakistan to join with us in the non-proliferation review conference that will be held next spring," Clinton told reporters.

"We want them to really understand how serious a threat we face."

During her three-day visit, she is due to hold talks with the political and military leadership, meet those displaced by the conflict in Waziristan, the political opposition and reach out to civil society to improve the US image.

"We?re trying to reach more broadly into the society," she said in a bid to reverse "misconceptions" about the United States in Pakistan.

[Neo]

New US policy to raise aid for Pakistan

By Anwar Iqbal
Friday, 30 Oct, 2009

‘We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future,’ said Mr Obama while defining the strategy he is expected to announce soon. – Photo by Reuters.

WASHINGTON: The new US policy for the Pak-Afghan region will be a combination of continued military presence in Afghanistan and an increase in military and economic assistance to Pakistan, officials and lawmakers say.

US President Barack Obama holds his final meeting with his senior military advisers on Friday to finalise the policy. Mr Obama has already held six such meetings with senior military and political advisers since late last month.

‘We have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future,’ said Mr Obama while defining the strategy he is expected to announce soon.

But even after weeks of review, administration officials say a range of options is still under consideration, including whether additional US forces could be deployed in phases.

At 3.40am on Thursday, Mr Obama visited Delaware’s Dover Air Force Base to attend the transfer of 15 soldiers and three drug enforcement agents killed in Afghanistan this week.

The solemn visit underscores the enormity of the president’s decision as he has to choose between saving American lives and defeating the terrorists to prevent future attacks.

Meanwhile, the US media reported that President Obama had asked senior officials for a province-by-province analysis of Afghanistan to determine which regions were being managed effectively by local leaders and which required international help.

The media interpreted this as indicating that the administration was now shifting its attention away from Kabul and was seeking to deal directly with strong provincial and tribal leaders. The reports claimed the Obama administration had now concluded that the Taliban could not be eliminated as a military and political force, regardless of how many more troops were deployed.

The clearest outline of the new US policy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, however, came from Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, who underlined the key position Pakistan enjoys in the new strategy:

No front is more important in the US fight against international terrorism than nuclear-armed Pakistan -- and chaos next door in Afghanistan would have enormous repercussions there.

Pakistan is not only the headquarters of Al Qaeda today but could eventually become the epicentre of extremism in the world.

If the United States and its allies are perceived as incapable of doing the job, it would help extremists recruit and raise doubt -- not just in the region, but globally -- about America’s resolve and its effectiveness.

While stabilising Afghanistan is not going to solve all the problems in Pakistan, instability in Afghanistan can only increase the risk of conflagration where the world can least afford it: Pakistan.

Given the balance of US strategic interests, the United States should give serious pause to the current balance of US expenditure between Afghanistan, where there is virtually no Al Qaeda, and Pakistan, where there is, tallies thirty-to-one.

There are serious challenges for Pakistan’s civilian, military and intelligence leaders. Historically Pakistani intelligence services have used the Taliban as a hedge, and there is a real concern that that continues.

If the US falters in Afghanistan, factions within Pakistan may well determine it is in their interest to strengthen their dealings with extremists.

[Neo]

US embassy to be asked to pay more for land

Saturday, 31 Oct, 2009

ISLAMABAD: The government is reported to have decided to increase the price of land being provided to the US embassy for its expansion.

The embassy would be told to pay more; otherwise, the size of the plot would be reduced from the originally earmarked 18.5 acres.

A source said that the Foreign Office had submitted a summary to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani suggesting that the rate for additional land should be revised from Rs15,000 to Rs80,000 per sq yard (about $100 per sq yard).

It said that before the allocation was promised to the embassy, the Capital Development Authority (CDA) had requested the Foreign Office to increase the price of land in the Diplomatic Enclave. It said other foreign missions had been asked to pay Rs80,000 per square yard, but the US was getting land at the old rate.

The source said that senior FO officials and Prime Minister Gilani were convinced that the rate fixed for additional land needed to be revised.

Land is given to foreign missions on a reciprocal basis, and there are reports that the US authorities had charged market rate for land purchased by Pakistan in Washington.

‘The US authorities have so far not been given offer letter and only the Foreign Office had been informed that the CDA will charge at the rate of Rs15,000 per sq yard for additional land,’ a CDA official said.

He said there was no harm in sending the offer letter to the US embassy after revising the price.

When asked if the US authorities would agree to pay more after funds had been allocated for embassy’s expansion, he said: ‘If they don’t… the CDA can reduce the plot size.’

The source said the US embassy had not yet paid for the land or submitted a site plan for expansion of the embassy.

‘All diplomatic missions will have to follow the procedure and process observed in construction of private and public premises in Islamabad. The US embassy would have to get the new building plan approved from the CDA before beginning construction,’ said the CDA official.

[Neo]

Complexities of Pak-US relations

Analysis by Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi

As long as the political circles in both countries recognise that some differences in policy orientation and implementation are natural and they can cooperate on the basis of the shared agenda while respecting their differences, there are prospects for a stable and mutually rewarding relationship

Foreign policy making and implementation is a complex process, inextricably linked with political competition and bargaining among the key political interests in the domestic context. The overall foreign policy profile of a country is influenced greatly by its internal strengths and weaknesses, especially the nature of consensus among the key political players and the economic conditions.

At times, foreign policy is shaped more by immediate domestic contestation rather than a dispassionate analysis of international realities. Similarly, global and regional dynamics may restrict the policy options of a state for addressing a number of domestic issues and mould domestic and security priorities.

Periodic strains in the Pakistan-US relations, especially the controversy on the Enhanced Partnership Act 2009 (Kerry-Lugar Act), reflect the divergent interests and worldviews of key domestic players in the two countries. This disharmony appears to have made them somewhat ignorant of each other’s political sensitivities.

The negative reaction to the Enhanced Partnership Act was caused mainly because some of its provisions have gone into unnecessary details in total disregard to Pakistan’s internal political sensitivities. One can argue that most conditions for certification for military assistance and monitoring for economic assistance were applicable to the US assistance to Pakistan in the past. For example, the US has been demanding direct access to Dr AQ Khan since 2003 but Pakistan has rejected these demands and will continue to do so in the future.

However, there is a major difference between the Enhanced Partnership Act and earlier arrangements for US economic and military assistance to Pakistan. No previous arrangements went into the minute details of how the US should evaluate the conduct of important institutions of the Pakistani state regarding terrorism, nuclear non-proliferation and civilian primacy. Though none of these formulations are binding on Pakistan, these provided good ammunition to the opposition in Pakistan to target the government. The Islamist and ultra-nationalists who are opposed to closer Pakistan-U.S. relations described the Act as an insult to Pakistan. This provided them with an easy handle to further stir anti-US sentiments.

On top of all this, the army high command issued a public statement, taking strong exception to the contentious provisions of the Act, ostensibly to put their weight on the side of those who opposed the Act. This encouraged political leaders, especially those of the PMLN, to take a tough position.

While drafting the Act, the US administration did not appear to pay attention to the implications of the language of the contentious provisions for Pakistan’s domestic politics, which continues to be polarised on the US role in the region, the war on terrorism, the military’s political clout and the faltering credibility the PPP-led coalition government.

Pakistani diplomats and the political leaders interacting with the US administration were divorced from political realities and did not visualise the implications of these provisions. They were also oblivious to the fact that the opposition parties and groups were looking for an opportunity to take on the government in order to weaken it and force mid-term elections.

The disclosure of the details of the Act synchronised with the controversies in Pakistan about the stepped up presence of US marines and private security personnel in Islamabad and Peshawar. This was in addition to the reports about the plans for the expansion of the US embassy and the renting of over 200 houses in Islamabad. The ministries of interior and foreign affairs could not address these issues, generating rumours about the purpose of increased US presence in Pakistan.

This political environment was bound to make it easy for the opposition to interpret the Act as yet another attempt to overwhelm Pakistan. The negative public response to these issues was a major embarrassment to the government in the domestic context as well as in its interaction with the US.

The army high command viewed this as a deliberate attempt by Pakistan’s presidency to embarrass the military and the intelligence agencies through the insertion of certification and monitoring clauses. They were especially disturbed by section 203(15) which suggested monitoring of their internal organisational affairs.

Traditionally, the military has always objected to civilian interference in their organisational affairs, including promotions and posting and disbursement of defence expenditure. They thought that Pakistan’s president and his allies were attempting to use the US backdoor to interfere with the military’s affairs.

The PMLN launched a major political offensive against the Act, describing it as an attempt to turn Pakistan into a US colony. This posture was meant to cash on widespread anti-US sentiments in Pakistan in order to pursue their domestic agenda of undermining the credibility of the government and forcing mid-term elections.

If Pakistan’s domestic political dynamics was the major factor determining the response of the political forces to the Act, US domestic politics and concerns have played an important role in shaping the contents of the Act.

In the US, most people associated with official military and civilian circles, think tanks and media express mixed views about Pakistan’s role in combating terrorism, viewing Pakistan both as a key to the solution and a part of the problem as well. They do not appear to be convinced that various Pakistani state institutions, especially the intelligence agencies, are fully committed to eliminating terrorist groups altogether. It is a common practice to talk of some “rogue” elements in Pakistan’s security and intelligence agencies supporting some selected terrorists groups.

They have repeatedly talked of parts of the tribal areas as being a refuge for some Al Qaeda and Afghan Taliban leaders and activists. Other reasons for distrust pertain to alleged diversion of military and economic assistance from the designated purposes to other unspecified goals. The reimbursements from the Coalition Support Fund to the Pakistan government have been a major issue in the US with reference to non-transparency in their utilisation.

These concerns have led the US administration, and especially the Congress, to enforce more elaborate stipulations for aid utilisation and monitoring of institutions that matter for counter-terrorism. They were so occupied with their perception of Pakistan’s role in countering terrorism that they did not recognise the sensitivities of Pakistan’s politics and society on these issues. Consequently, their decision to go for a detailed checklist for certification and monitoring has created additional problems in Pakistan-US relations and threatened Pakistan’s internal stability.

The recent visit of Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, to Islamabad and Lahore was a successful ‘damage control’ exercise after the fiasco caused by the contentious and non-diplomatic formulation of some provisions of the Act. Her down-to-earth engagement with various groups is expected to help reduce the current anxieties about the US agenda for Pakistan. Much depends how far and how quickly the committed assistance for social and economic development helps to improve the quality of life for ordinary people. Some opposition by the PMLN and the Islamists would continue because it relates to the current exigencies of Pakistan’s domestic politics.

As long as the political circles in both countries recognise that some differences in policy orientation and implementation are natural and they can cooperate on the basis of the shared agenda while respecting their differences, there are prospects for a stable and mutually rewarding relationship between Pakistan and the US.

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst

[Neo]

The visit and the strategy review

ARTICLE (November 05 2009): Hillary Clinton's three-day visit - unusually long for a US Secretary of State - came at a time when President Barack Obama is undertaking a review of the US-Afghan strategy, in which Pakistan is set to play a major role without being asked for a consultative contribution.

Since Islamabad is no longer a one-window operation, and there is a different president in Washington, the visit apparently was meant to attain an informed perspective of public opinion as it affects US objectives in this region.

In fact, Secretary Clinton herself, told a group of journalists in Lahore that she wanted to reach out to the people to know the questions that are on their minds, and to better understand their concerns. Of that she had an earful at each of the numerous interactive meetings she had with the media, students, civil society groups, parliamentarians, and political leaders in Islamabad and Lahore.

Clinton was open and relaxed in responding to questions, including the hostile ones, but not so America's local apologists, and in certain cases, its bootlickers. They have been particularly upset at the strong criticism the Kerry-Lugar Bill invited before and during her meetings.

For her part, the Secretary of State repeated what Senator John Kerry, co-author of the bill, had said before her when he visited Islamabad a few days earlier. She averred that the clauses of the bill, that the people in this country saw as objectionable and humiliating, were actually part of the legislative language members of the Congress routinely use to explain to their constituents why public money was being given to another country.

And that the US was not forcing the money on the Pakistani people, if they did not want it, they could say no to it. According to America's local apologists, no one in this country has an answer to this take-it-or-leave-it suggestion, because Pakistanis want the money and badmouth America, too!

That though is not how most Pakistanis view the issue. Of course, we need the money. But we do not see it as a great favour that the US is bestowing upon Pakistan; it is a compensation for the losses Pakistan has suffered on account of the US' Afghan war blowback into this country, which has turned into a fully blown, bloody insurgency.

The aid law promises to bring in $7.5 billion over a five-year period. As per our own government estimates, so far our economy has suffered losses worth over $40 billion because of the war. And few are willing to invest in a war economy. The compensation on offer actually is far too little.

Congressmen and senators should have had no problem explaining to their constituents that the aid money was meant to help the people who are helping their country's war in Afghanistan. They might understand it better if they are also told that less than a thousand US soldiers - whose job it is to kill or get killed in defending their country - have died in Afghanistan, while more than 20,000 Pakistanis, men, women and children, have lost their lives and countless others have been maimed for life.

The number of our dead is at least seven times higher than that of the 9/11 tragedy; and higher also than the Pakistanis killed in the two major wars we have fought with India. Most of these casualties are 'collateral damage' of a war that initially had nothing to do with Pakistan, but has now reached its cities and homes.

Back to the strategy review. During her talk with Lahore journalists, Clinton made the startling remarks that al Qaeda has been present in Pakistan since 2002, and that "they [Pakistanis] know it, and can get them if they want." This certainly was not an outburst of a political novice, but deliberate words of the US Secretary of State who has served for several years as a Senator from New York and also has a strong, albeit unsuccessful, presidential bid behind her.

She later backtracked from the provocative remarks from 'they know it but won't get al Qaeda' to 'al Qaeda is present in Pakistan'. Still, the White House issued a statement backing her words. What is going on? The US is about ready to redefine success in Afghanistan. Under review are at least two proposals, one, a request by the top US military commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, for a 40,000-troop surge, and the other Vice President Joe Biden's plan.

Biden advises against sending more troops into Afghanistan. Instead, he proposes, a policy shift from counter-insurgency to counter-terrorism. That means the US will stop its so-called 'counter-insurgency campaign' against the Taliban, and focus only on fighting al Qaeda, which Clinton said is based in Pakistan. The Biden proposal seems to be gaining acceptance. The US has already opened talks with the Afghan Taliban.

A vital question that this strategy ignores is this. After the Taliban make a triumphant return to Kabul, what will prevent their al Qaeda friends from moving back into Afghanistan ie if they are camped on this side of the Durand Line? When that happens, going by its past policy, the US will start pressuring Pakistan to do more, this time to stop al Qaeda from relocating to Afghanistan or, if they are already there, from consolidating their position.

The US, as per the plan, will continue to use Predator drones to attack what it claims are al Qaeda hideouts in Pakistan from a safe distance, inviting more reprisal bombings in our cities. In short, we are in for more trouble. And yet our government is not even being consulted, which comes out clearly from Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi's latest assertions.

Speaking in Malaysia the other day, he publicly sought to remind the US what he said he had told Secretary Clinton privately during her recent visit. That we understand the areas, the tribes, the local culture and traditions, and also that Pakistan is the main supply line for the US. And hence the US should share the findings of the ongoing review strategy with us and also include our input in it.

We need to work out our own strategy based on our knowledge of the situation, and insist that the US take our concerns into account. Whether al Qaeda is present in Pakistan or not, one thing is clear: it wants to destabilise Pakistan to further its international agenda. Al Qaeda's defeat is in our own interest. It is important, therefore, that Washington prepare its exit strategy for Afghanistan in close consultation with Islamabad.