Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
Pakistan Dispatch - Kerry who?!
Kerry Lugar is the talk of Islamabad. And as tempted as Londonstani was at first to assume everyone was referring to a new pop star rival to Britney it turns out Kerry Lugar is actually a piece of US legisation that triples non-military aid to Pakistan.
Londonstani can only justify his shocking lack of knowledge of the wierd way in which Americans name their legislative acts by pointing out that reporting on this bill has been fairly scarce. But its low profile in the Western media is inversely proportional to the amount of air and conversation time the bill is receiving in Islamabad.
Reuters describes the bill as; "legislation (that) authorizes $1.5 billion a year for the next five years as part of a bid to build a new relationship with Pakistan that no longer focuses largely on military ties, but also on Pakistan's social and economic development."
An op-ed in the Boston Globe wonders why Senator John Kerry described his bill as a landmark achievement "when we have no idea where aid to Pakistan goes."
This is a totally sensible line of questioning when you consider how US aid to Pakistan during the Afghan war was diverted and used to build nuclear weapons or lined the pockets of corrupt officials and politicians.
But, from a Pakistani perspective, this is all missing the point. And Londonstani couldn't help but feel that the cross currents of the debate in Pakistan and the US is highly illustrative of the communication problem between the two countries.
At first glance, Pakistan is getting a bunch of cash from the Americans who want to know that its not going to end up in military programmes, training for Bombay style attacks while securing assurances that the nuclear supermarket the Pakistanis were running until very recently will be put to an end. Any right thinking Pakistani would want foreign aid to actually help alleviate poverty and not fund the generals, right? Everyone should be happy. In fact, your average Pakistani should be ecstatic, right?
Well not exactly.. not even close. Government officials have been on TV and radio day and night trying to convince the public that the aid is a good idea. Parliament is bogged down with MPs asking pointed questions and demanding answers about the strings attached to the cash. What's their problem? Well, in a word, dignity.
A Pakistani friend who works with foreign missions and international bodies sums it up; "People want to know that the government hasn't sold the interests of the nation to an outside power.
It's that potential for differences of interpretation that's worrying my friend. For example, Reuters says "the bill also stipulates that U.S. military aid will cease if Pakistan does not help fight "terrorists," including Taliban insurgents and al Qaeda followers taking sanctuary along its borders with Afghanistan."
Do Pakistanis trust America to stipulate who is Taliban and who isn't? Would the Americans wave the bill infront of Pakistani officials and tell them to kill people protesting a drone strike? A lot of Pakistanis think so.
According to figures dug up by AP only $500 million of $6.6 billion in U.S. aid between 2002 and 2008 for fighting insurgents has actually been used for what it was intended. So aren't Pakistanis worried that whatever money is around will end up in politicians' pockets anyway? Well, yes, said my friend, but the bigger worry is that it looks like we are for sale.
Ever tried to tell a black community worker in Brixton that her friends and relatives needed to sort out the problem of errant fathers? No? Londonstani wouldn't be that stupid either, but has seen a local official try. After the meeting fell apart amid near violence, the community worker said, "sort out the discrimination, before you tell us how to live our lives." And that's what the Pakistani view of Kerry-Lugar reminded Londonstani of. "We have problems, but we won't be talked down to by the people responsible for our misery."
Pakistan's information minister, Qamar Zaman Kaira, on national TV earlier today concentrated on the theme of Pakistan's national honour.
"Pakistan is not a country that needs saving from outside.. We are not begging. No, we have been the world's battlefield. We were conceived as a social security state, but we became a security state... This was not of our choosing. We were hostage to fortune. Since we have been founded we have been key in the world's major conflicts. From the time of the U2s flying from our territory to the present fight against al Qaeda."
He avoided the other important theme - corruption - which Londonstani can't help but feel would have got a rather more cynical reception.
A bill with a girl's name that aims to improve the lives of Pakistan's people is attacked in Washington as huggy feely and unrelated to military aims. But the real tragedy is in Pakistan where it is dismissed as another Western plot to dismember the nation.
This is the real cost of the communication problem between U.S. officialdom and media on one hand and the people
of Pakistan on the other. Not the government, but the public. Without a basic level of trust amongst Pakistanis in U.S. aims, the likelihood is that the money will end up fueling the kind of resentment it was meant to address. After five years, it might well have been more useful to have just chucked the cash in the sea.
Right, so how to communicate with the people? Any ideas?
Here's an idea of what communication problems lead to on the mean streets of Islamabad.
The referring-to-self-in-third-person bit never gets old. Never.
I'm sorry. I'm grumpy right now. Good points all around.
A certain Madhu has been harping on the bad idea-ness of this bill, since, like, forever! Ever since she ran across Military Inc (the book)!
I thought maybe I was crazy (okay, I'm a little nutty, but I'm not actually crazy) but it turns out a certain Madhu has a point!
Yeah, I'm a goof. I mean well, though.
Both the Americans and the Pakistanis have a point: this money is a bad idea because you can't buy love. Well, you can, but we all know what that relationship's called and it ain't about dignity!
Londostani: what DO the Pakistanis want, the average person that we'd like to help, not the kleptocrats? Besides us out of Afghanistan? I haven't a clue; my family are all in the West or scattered around India and completely obsessed with the Indian GDP and the growth of the economy. To be honest, Pakistan and Kashmir is just not that big a deal with them. Srsly.
Yep, exactly so. The average Pakistani on the street feels no more collective responsibility for 9/11 than the average white American feels collective responsibility for slavery. They are a riotously sovereign people for whom shame is the only fear.
Here's a question I'd like to know the answer to: how would the average Punjabi feel if, after a second 9/11 or an eventual withdrawl from Afghanistan in the face of the ISI-backed Taliban, we build India's military into an absolute powerhouse? ABM technology transfer and "misplaced" thermonuclear plans? December 2001 squared?
Madhu,
I didn't realize you were a lady.
Second, I hope there are some transparency and anti-corruption measures attached to the bill. although I am sure there aren't
How much transparency and what forms of anti-corruption measures are in place for the several odd billion dollars in annual military aid allocated for Israel?
There is a lot of (manufactured?) outrage in the Pakistani media about this bill. Interestingly, known establishment (aka ISI?) spokespeople like Kamran Khan are at the forefront of this effort. Is the army trying to fight a rearguard action against shutting down its remaining Jihadi assets? The PMLN has also come out against it very openly. Considering that Mian sahib cannot to the bathroom without checking with King Abdullah, one wonders: What does that mean?
One possibility is that this whole brouohaha is totally cynical BS that means nothing and will lead to nothing. Given the corrupt and cynical state of Pakistani politics and military psyops, this is not out of the question. OR, it could be prelude to a soft coup of some sort? (but will Anne Patterson be OK with that?) OR, it could be a real effort to get out of some Kerry-lugar conditionalities...but which ones and why? Is it about the monetary oversight? why would professional theives and extortionists be scared of a few accountants? The one thing that is really seriously new in this bill is the explicit emphasis on shutting down jihadis in Punjab and wrapping up the so-called "Quetta shura". Is the army still hoping to keep some jihadi assets in its pocket? Maybe when GHQ wargamed this thing, they felt they are in a position to get more concessions from America because America is desperate in Afghanistan? That may well be true. It does seem to me that Obama is not eager to fight a long war in Afghanistan and the army may be able to keep some of its pet projects in return for helping America get a face saving exit from Afghanistan. But what if their wargaming is wrong? Thats been known to happen.... Somehow, I keep coming back to the thought "storm in a teacup", but even storms in teacups can get out of hand...Anyway, whatever it is, one thing is certain, its not happening because someone is worrying about the daily needs of 98% of the people of Pakistan.
This is a favorite Pakistani occupation: reading the tea leaves to try and find out what is going on. Sitting 10.000 miles away right now, I have no inside info and look forward to your comments...
Naughty Londonstani! I hope you're not visiting India anytime soon or that scumbag Raj Thackeray will be after you for saying the 'B' word rather than Mumbai. ;)
To visitor: The outrage is manufactured to the extent that the average Pakistani is not likely to scrutinize the Bill details, and the highlighting of the controversial sections in the media ( including by Kamran Khan) has increased awareness of finer details likely to be missed by most. However, once brought out in the public domain, its easy to see why the average khalid on the street is likely to join the the small Anti Bill lobby on the street. The political parties have jumped on the band wagon because they sense the populist potential of the anti Bill protest. Its not relevant whether Nawaz Sharif remains tied to the Saudi leash or not, what is relevant is that he can exploit the popular antipathy to the bill, and by association, to the Zardari government, and he will. Thats politics.
The Bill has touched a raw nerve not because of the accountability clauses: " Is it about the monetary oversight? why would professional theives and extortionists be scared of a few accountants" Exactly! and the professional, serial theives, are actually the real defenders of the Bill. What has riled everyone (and believe me its everyone who can read write, watch shoddy talk shows etc) is that the Bill lays out the dirty laundry of Pak-US relations all out in the open for all to see. The access to personnal involved in the Nuclear programme, shutting down Muridke camps, reneging support and sancturies to the Quetta Shura, all are items on a US wishlist that has been bandied about back and forth for a long time. Just like in a bad marriage there are a host of greviences on both sides, but as the economic aid bill was supposed to make some amends and start a new chapter, the critics feel that this rather public, documented and one sided, airing of bilateral political and security issues, is a tight slap in the face of all pakistani's who feel that we are actually partners in this sordid war.
Truth is Pak-US have been engaging on all these issues for a longtime and we all know Military dictators are usually the favoured kind of Pakistani's for the US security establishment. Kerry-Lugar conditionalities or not, if tomorrow there is a mili.coup bringing in a COAS ready to go after the Quetta shura full blast, there will always be a big chance that a Presidential wavair would be found to continue economic aid for the "people " of Pakistan. So yes! why the scantimonius language? for the congress and domestic US interest lobbies, of course. We know that, the khalid on the street knows that. But what about the public opinion here? what happened to the winning hearts and minds? state dept. has increased public spending, by millions on PR in the muslim world and specifically with Pakistani public. All expenses are down the proverbial drain, as public opinion is becoming stridently anti-American by the day.
My problem with the Bill is the baby being thrown out with the bath water. The bill is essentially a good thing. Focusing aid on education, health, agriculture, governance can only be a good thing. But this bad management, on part of Pak. Gov. interlocuters, messers Haqqani and co., and sloppy homework of State Dept. types who rely too deeply on all koshar diet fed to them by Haqqani et al, and the scycophant cretins that form the presidential inner core in Pakistan.
"Maybe when GHQ wargamed this thing, they felt they are in a position to get more concessions from America because America is desperate in Afghanistan? That may well be true" It is true, visitor. and this fact is not lost on anyone. We are partners with the US in this WOT, but incresingly want to moderate this partnership in ways that provide some space to pursue goals and objectives that might not be 100% aligned with those of the US.
Islo elite,
All the posturing about "humiliation" is good for the media, but behind the scenes the adults are talking nuts and bolts. As you yourself say, GHQ thinks they can get America to blink on:
1. Conditionalities that impair army influence in civilian life. I think GHQ may be right and America may blink> they have always loved military dictators and this new found love for civilian rule is only skin deep.
2. "India-specific Jihadis". Again, GHQ may be right. This is India's headache, not America's. The US may blink provided ISI can keep LET from doing something Mumbai style again (always a question mark since the jihadis are not known for sticking to the script).
3. "good taliban". THIS is the sticking point. GHQ wants their people to get a bigger role in Kabul. Maybe they calculate that the US will eventually get out and the good taliban can then take over the rest of the country and no one will care. But firstly, it maybe that even the very nice Mr. Obama is not ready for the entertainments to resume in kabul stadium. Secondly, even if the US agrees (and maybe they will, after all Pax Americana may be very very hard to achieve, will be very costly and will mostly benefit India and China and Iran and even the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but not so much the US, which will have to do the heavy lifting) the result will not be a peaceful Afghanistan run by our old friends, but rather a new civil war, with Indian, Pakistani, Iranian and Russian proxies fighting it out for the next ten years.
Anyway, I agree that the US has not been good with the PR side of things. but I disagree about that being the crucial issue. The crucial issues are elsewhere. This is mostly psyops.
Naive question: what WOULD happen if Pakistan received no aid, military or otherwise, from the US? No one here thinks that's a possibility, right?
BTW, what is India up to in Afghanistan? The NYT At War blog does some man on the street stuff about Kerry Lugar and a coupla Pak. young men go on about India's (alleged?) involvement/presence in Afghanistan.
Visitor (Come, choose a nick): You forget that Pakistan is in a nearly post-revolutionary political state post Musharaff. So to see it all as a game of checkers between powers who do not have to listen to the people and their fears/anger is, at worst, hardcore orientalism.
idolworshipper: Not a LIKELY possibility. Both the US and Pakistan are addicted to this codependent relationship. But if it does happen, that implies a serious rupture (one can imagine the US pulling out and putting GHQ in charge locally, which is NOT a rupture and which would mean even MORE aid, but we are talking about NO aid here), which means the US is either pulling out of Afghanistan (in which case expect some nastiness at exit) or is doubling down and will go after the GHQ-Jihadi axis directly, which will be bad news for everyone caught in the collateral damage zone...either way, I dont see a happy scenario where the US stops aid and everyone is all kumbaya..
'Both the US and Pakistan are addicted to this codependent relationship"
Forget about AID, specifically, to Pakistan and think about the broader dysfunctions of the Western AID regime in many parts of the world. You could make the argument (plenty have, from Dambisa Moyo at the most extreme to lesser versions of the same) that the money simply "hardens" corrupt institutions. Her example in Africa is that China does business while the US doles out AID in haphazard and potentially counterproductive ways. Okay, I'm simplifying, but you all know what I mean.
We need to seriously re-think our old AID regimes - although, during a war next door, maybe not so much. As many of the comments in the Pakistan threads show, it doesn't make the US better liked - and this is the part that irritates - there is NO WILL to make necessary economic reforms by the governing elite of the AID receiving countries, outsiders are continually blamed for internal problems, and there is an escalating co-dependency such that no one thinks outside the standard AID structures.
It's a long term loser for the US, imo. Sometime, someway, we are going to have to re-think all of this. It won't be pleasant, because so many are invested in the standard narratives.
Madhu, I agree with most of what you say. But about China, you are mistaken. They just didnt have the kind of cash the US used to throw around, but now that they have some, they are paying off dictators and sending in "aid" with gusto. The idea that China is some kind of qualitative improvement over the US may be true in some areas (like Latin America, where the US has generally been a big bully and China can afford to be nicer) but the African honeymoon with China may not last forever. OR, it may last a while yet because MAYBE China is fresh capitalism, not yet rotted from within to the same degree. But then again, maybe not. I think some leftwing intellectuals have grown up hating the US and imagine that this is a US-specific problem, not a generic problem of "great powers". IMHO, its part of the big power package and its not going to be greatly different when the big power speaks Chinese, but I do have hope that the whole world may move on beyond the great power paradigm someday and then neither China nor America will get to play these games. In the past, I think the US has not been a force for good in South Asia, but at this particular juncture, they may do some good IF they have the finesse and determination to succeed (which is saying a lot; While the US army as an army is first class, their other instruments are pretty much CYA Bullshit, so its hard to be an optimist). And yes, I am making the claim that left to themselves, India and Pakistan MAY well blow the place up.
Political economy 101 says that foreign aid makes state leadership less beholden to its people. Pakistanis are right to be mistrustful. They didn't vote for members of the US government. They know that more rents equals less representation.
See, this is what makes me curious about the educated Pakistanis who believe the "it's all an American plot to control the country" line - aren't they worried that if they piss us off enough, we'll tell them to fuck off and go full hilt in supporting India?
Personally, if we ever get out of Afghanistan, that's what I'd hope the US would do. Tying our horse to Pakistan was a goddamn mistake from the very beginning, going back to the 1950s when we decided to do it as opposed to trying to work out issues with India.
Dear Brett: Hell, yeah! But it aint gonna happen. Not that India doesnt have its own profound pathologies, but nothing on the order of Pakistan's. Pakistan is like the bad child who gets all the attention and all the bribes to behave better---and never really changes its ways. I guess the question is, what WOULD get the ISI to stop supporting terrorist activity? In the vein of the naive questions I'm asking, is that at all possible in the current circumstances and the Obama admin. just doesnt see/cant bring itself to do it? Or is it impossible and we are all hostage to Pakistani politics?
Add your comment