Pakistan’s famed lobbying efforts on the Capitol Hill have come to a naught on Wednesday April 26, 2016 with several American lawmakers questioning its policies and priorities in the context of war on terrorism
It was a multi-pronged attack on Pakistan. The provocation was President Obama’s proposal to provide $742 million to Pakistan. The apprehensions that the F-16s could be misused added to the fire.
Special Representative for Af-Pak, Richard Olson and USAID’s Donald Sampler were no match to the lawmakers led by Ros-Lehtinen, who had set the tone for the attack on Pakistan at a meeting of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Ms Lehtinen is clear that Pakistan has contributed to the Taliban successes. “The Taliban operate freely because Pakistan refuses to take action against them inside its borders. Pakistan a direct contributor to the Taliban success”, she said surprising the Pakistani interlocutors and lobbyists alike. Her outburst highlights the increasing sense of unease among the American policy makers and lawmakers alike.
Hitherto the administration is known for its double speak on matters Pakistan. One on the one hand the officials express concern over Haqqani fixation of Pakistan acting as stumbling block for peace in Kabul. And on the other hand, the administration pushes ahead with military aid to Pakistan knowing fully well that the jets would of little strategic tools for fighting terrorism in Northwest Pakistan.
Ros-Lehtinen comments show that there are few takers for the administration’s double speak on the Capitol Hill. Because she said, “It makes little sense to continue giving Pakistan billions of dollars if it’s going to continue to work against our interests.” She urged the White House and State Department to “leverage our aid” to make Pakistan “a better regional partner with Afghanistan”, according to a media report.
The following excerpt from a Dawn report puts in perspective the discomfiture of Ambassador Olson as he faced the barrage of questions from the House Committee:
.
Ambassador Olson reminded the lawmakers that Pakistan was at a strategic crossroads and had made great progress over the past couple of years in addressing its domestic counter-terrorism priorities. Pakistan had also taken robust action against those groups, principally the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, that threaten Pakistanis, he added.
But the US administration had “made very clear at the highest levels” that “there is considerable room for improvement in the application” of targeting all terrorist groups without any discrimination, said the senior US diplomat.
“We believe in particular that Pakistan has not taken as vigorous action against groups that threaten its neighbours as it has against those that threaten it domestically.”
Ambassador Olson said that Pakistan now had to make a strategic choice, “with the Taliban having refused to come to the table, it seems to us that it is time to address more robustly the question of groups that threaten Afghanistan”.
But Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen disagreed. “We need to leverage our military sales to Pakistan in order to get some more cooperation within the region,” she said.
Congressmen Matt Salmon and Brad Sherman reminded the administration that Congress had, in the recent past, withheld US aid to Pakistan because it was still holding Dr Shakil Afridi, who assisted US efforts in tracking down Osama bin Laden and later was jailed for 23 years for alleged links to terrorist groups.
By keeping Dr Afridi in prison, the Pakistani government was “thumbing their nose to the United States and the people of the United States”, said a third lawmaker, Dana Rohrabacher.
“Should we look for any other possible restrictions?” asked Mr Salmon, who chairs the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
“What would be the Pakistani response if we cut all aid until Dr Afridi was released?” asked Mr Sherman.
Mr Sampler told the lawmaker that the administration shared his sense of outrage with regard to the plight of Dr Afridi and had raised this issue at the very highest levels.
“We have requested the release of Dr Afridi and we continually request updates on his health and his status,” he said while reminding the lawmaker that the tactics he suggested had not yielded any results.
But the congressman said that Pakistan should “take a second and third and fourth look at the incarceration of this man and look to his expedited release,” if it wanted to improve its ties with the US.
Congressman Salmon also raised the issue of the Panama leaks at the hearing, noting that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s family was named in those papers.
Mr Sampler refused to offer direct comments on Panama papers, but assured the lawmaker that the US was “in favour of greater financial transparency”.
Ambassador Olson said that the US had established a hotline in Pakistan to ensure that American financial assistance was not misappropriated.
Congressman Sherman asked why the US administration had routinely declined to certify that Pakistan was cooperating with the United States on action against the Haqqani Network and others.
“We have long had concerns about the fact that despite Pakistan having a stated policy of not discriminating between terrorist groups and the application of that policy, they have in fact not moved against actors that threaten their neighbours,” Mr Sampler replied.
Congressman Rohrabacher claimed that Islamabad was “killing the Baloch by the thousands and attacking their neighbours with the supporting terrorist incursions into India”.
“What more can Pakistan do that would have us cut off the military aid?” he asked.