Jonathan S. Landay report in McClatchy Newspapers highlights the duplicity inherent in the US-Pak relations. On the one hand the Obama administration has refused for the first time to declare that Pakistan is making progress toward ending alleged military support for Islamic militant groups or preventing al Qaida, the Afghan Taliban or other extremists from staging attacks in Afghanistan. And on the other hand, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has quietly informed Congress that she has waived the legal restrictions that would have blocked some $2 billion in U.S. economic and military aid to Pakistan.
If Pakistan is not making progress in the war against terrorism in which the US has a direct stake, it forfeits any claim on American economic aid. The US of America doesn’t think so because it does not subscribe to conventional wisdom, logic and above all its own experience of dealing with Pakistan. So, Clinton justifies the disbursing American funds to Pakistan as “important to the national security interests of the United States.”
As Landay reported Clinton’s decision illustrates how far the US administration apparently has determined that it must go to ensure Pakistan’s cooperation in the uphill U.S. effort to prevent Afghanistan collapsing into all-out civil war after end 2014. It means that Washington sees very little leeway for itself after the near-breakdown in relations with its front line ally last year.
Given the past record, it is clear that the latest US move will backfire. The waivers could encourage the GHQ Shura to believe that their cooperation is crucial for Washington and that it will continue overlooking Pakistan’s refusal to end support for Haqqani Net work and other insurgent groups or to close down the militant sanctuaries in North Waziristan.
As Congressional Research Service (CRS) report points for many American lawmakers, the core issue remains balancing Pakistan’s strategic importance to the United States with the pervasive and mounting distrust in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, as well as with budget deficit-reduction pressures. Since 1948, the United States has pledged more than $30 billion in direct aid, about half for military assistance. Two-thirds of this total was appropriated in the post-9/11 era from FY2002 to FY2011.
Many observers question the gains accrued to date, viewing a lack of accountability and reform by the Pakistani government as major obstacles. Moreover, any goodwill generated by U.S. aid is offset by widespread and intense anti-American sentiment among the Pakistani people.
Congress established two new funds in 2009—the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF) and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund to help build Pakistan’s counterinsurgency capabilities. When $1.5 billion in “coalition support fund” military reimbursements are added to economic and security aid totals, the United States provided a total of $4.3 billion for Pakistan for FY2010 alone, making it the second – highest recipient after Afghanistan. In addition to these ongoing programs, the United States pledged about $700 million in a response to extensive mid-2010 flooding in Pakistan.
The despatch in McClatchy Newspapers quotes two experts who are familiar with the Pakistan scene. “The army is going to think that no matter how angry the Americans are at them, they are utterly indispensable and they can violate in any way, shape or form U.S. law and the United States will massage its law to accommodate them,” said assistant professor Christine Fair, an expert at Georgetown University. “That’s how they are going to read this.”
Pir Zubair Shah, an expert with the Council on Foreign Relations, said Clinton’s decision might be intended as a warning to Pakistan that aid could be withheld next year if it doesn’t end the suspected collusion between its military and its chief spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, and extremist groups.
“It can be a signal that . . . next time we won’t apply a waiver and will block the aid,” he said.
State Department has called the aid funds a “critical component of U.S. efforts to continue to build a strong, mutually beneficial relationship” with Pakistan “despite recent challenges” in the relations. “We believe we should continue building on these steps and that our civilian and security assistance is a critical component of this effort," the statement said.
In her Sept. 13 notices, Clinton informed Congress that she was waiving provisions of the 2009 Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act and the State Department’s 2012 budget requiring that she certify that Islamabad has met certain conditions before some $2 billion in economic, military and counter-terrorism assistance can be disbursed.
Clinton didn’t disclose which specific prerequisites Pakistan failed to meet. Those details were classified.
It’s the first time that the Obama administration has waived the requirements, something the Bush administration did six times for democracy-related sanctions.
Until now, Clinton had certified Pakistani compliance even though U.S. commanders in Afghanistan and other U.S. officials had for years charged the Pakistani army and the ISI with supporting the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network. In September 2011, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explicitly accused the ISI of aiding Haqqani network attacks on U.S. targets in Afghanistan, including a strike against the U.S. Embassy.
Four days before she notified Congress she was waiving the conditions, Clinton decided – under pressure from Congress – to add the Haqqani network to the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. The Pakistani military, which for years has rejected U.S., demands that it move against the Haqqanis’ stronghold of North Waziristan, thinks that the group should participate in any settlement to the Afghan war.
– yamaaraar
