Can beggars be choosers?

Hello everybody, Here's another masterpiece from Mr. Ardsher Cowasjee on the topic of the famous American aid bill known famously as KLB or Kerry Lugar Bill. By Ardeshir Cowasjee Sunday, 11 Oct, 2009 font-size small font-size largefont-sizeprintemail share The Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani presiding over the 122 Corps Commanders Conference held at General Headquarters on Wednesday. —ISPR THE news as far as our media is concerned has been subsumed by the outcry, somewhat comically national, against the Kerry-Lugar bill and the perceived conditions it seeks to impose upon this client country. It has taken over and it seems will not die until some resolution is found — grumble but accept it under protest, or return to sender. There have been the usual fatal bomb blasts here and there, the continuing rape of minors, the Americans and British bewilderment over how to stay in or get out of Afghanistan, and a rallying cry from some responsible women parliamentarians, one being Sherry Rehman, asking that the noxious blasphemy laws be repealed. Fortunately, the non-issue of bringing Pervez Musharraf to trial and then hang him has been overtaken. The US and Saudi Arabia having spoken, that is that on that issue, it has been put aside, as is all when it comes to matters pertaining to the sovereign state of Pakistan. Outside guidance, or instruction, is mandatory. The Enhancement Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, has both civil and military Pakistan jumping up and down in what they term righteous indignation. This is no surprise for it has forever been America’s stated policy to act only in its own national interest and that is exactly what the contentious act has done. What it also does do, most illustratively, is to highlight the perception of Pakistan held by the US and surely by the rest of the demo- cratic world to which Pakistan aspires. The act is subject, in each of its five years’ duration to certification by the secretary of state, 'under the direction of the president', [‘please, teacher...] that the Pakistan government is continuing its cooperation with the US and its 'efforts to dismantle supplier networks relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapons-related materials, such as proving relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks'. There is no need for excessive grey matter to work that one out. Not only is the Republic perceived as being a nuclear underworld trader but also as a hotbed of terrorist activities, towards which it is expected to make significant efforts not only to combat but to cease to support. 'Elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agency' are suspected of rendering support to Al Qaeda, the Taliban and such groups as the Lashkar-i-Taiba and Jaish-i-Mohammed' which carry out cross-border attacks into neighbouring countries (no guesswork needed here either). The Republic, as history has it, is prone to interference by the military in its political affairs, and as this trend may persist, any direct cash security-related assistance or non-assistance payments will only be provided or made to civilian authorities of a civilian government. That puts the army in its place, at least temporarily. Though no doubt, in case history does repeat itself, suitable amendments will be made. The army and its chief are naturally angered by the clause that specifies an American assessment of the 'effective' control exercised by the government — this pathetic government — over all military matters, including its budget, chain of command, promotion process and involvement in civilian affairs. With the historic power the generals wield, they cannot be expected to take such language lying down. The implications are not clouded. A Sept 29 editorial in the Washington Post has summed it up neatly: 'In contrast to last April, when many in Washington feared that Pakistan was in danger of collapse as a secular state, the civilian government and the army have rallied ... and public support for the anti-Taliban offensives has been strong. Closer cooperation between US and Pakistani forces has produced a stepped-up tempo of US missile strikes in Pakistan.... '...Though willing to tackle the ethnic Pakhtun Taliban when its forces threatened the country’s heartland, the army still declines to invade the areas where the Taliban operations against Afghanistan are based. Ethnic Punjabi Islamic extremist groups that have mounted attacks on India, possibly with backing from the intelligence services, remain intact. The government of President Asif Ali Zardari remains inefficient and unpopular; its opponents claim it has returned to the corruption that in the 1990s earned Mr Zardari the sobriquet of ‘Mr Ten Per cent.’ Even the recent gains could come undone if civilian and military authorities are unable to establish a competent administration and policing force in Swat and other recaptured areas.' And on the Kerry-Lugar bill: 'As much as feasible, the administration must direct this aid to specific projects, rather than simply dump it into the Pakistani government’s coffers.' As it is, with corruption where it is, whether the US monitors the annual $1.5bn or not chances are that most of it will find its way into the deep pockets of politicians and bureaucrats with a mere trickle getting to the beloved awam. As for the president of the Republic, we know that much flouted visit to the States and the UN last month was neither here nor there. What happened would have happened whether he had been in New York or on Baffin Island. What would be of interest, in the context of the contentious act, is to know what arrangements or deals were made with Asif Zardari when the US gave him the green signal to go ahead and oust Musharraf. Questions: can beggars afford to be choosers? Can we pay our own bills or must we rely on handouts? What are our priorities and direction — are we prepared to give up our stand against terrorism and violence and allow suicide bombers the run of the country? The show must go on.