Stabilizing Pakistan

By

Dr Ghayur Ayub

The US Senate, passed Kerry-Lugar bill unanimously, outlining U.S. policy and financial commitments aimed at winning the war on terror in Afghanistan and stabilising Pakistan by countering Talibanisation in the country. The main features of the bill are; consolidation of democracy, good governance, and rule of law, along with economic growth and development to build a sustained, long-term, multifaceted relationship between the two countries. It specifically mentions Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Pakistan-Afghanistan border pointing at effective counterinsurgency strategy in those areas.  The strategy is based against three serious threats to the United States emanating from those areas: Direct attempts by Al Qaeda to attack the U.S. and Americans abroad; The possibility that Al Qaeda-influenced jihadists could acquire direct or indirect influence over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal; And the possibility that Pakistan-based jihadi groups could provoke a war between India and Pakistan. The bill has authorised President Obama to provide assistance to Pakistan under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, holding the Government of Pakistan accountable for how the funds are being spent.

It is important to mention at this juncture that The House has also passed a companion bill; the differences between the two versions are apparently serious enough that it might not be possible to reconcile them with ease. One alternative would be to substitute a new bill in The House that is closer to the Kerry-Lugar bill. It is still too early to know what the end result would be, but either way this is something that needs to be finished quickly if the US wants results. Apparently, stability in Pakistan is the primary aim for successful implementation of KL bill. Would solving the three threats behind the bill mentioned above be enough to make Pakistan stable? I personally don’t think so. It might be good for the Americans but it is not going to achieve stability in Pakistan. Before coming to that point let’s talk about holding Government of Pakistan accountable for how the funds are being spent.

Everybody in Pakistan knows that the corrupt departments of Pakistan created vast disparity between the development projects and finances spent on them.  As a result, the relevant documents became rich with information data and the work on the ground became poor shrinking development projects and filling individual pockets. This has been the story of Pakistan since its beginning. Before the bill was approved it was rightly assumed that the donors would keep a check on Pak government to utilise their funds appropriately. Is this a repeat of the past experiences? It might not be if one reads articles 10 and 11 which state; ‘to encourage and promote public-private partnerships in Pakistan in order to bolster ongoing development efforts and strengthen economic prospects, especially with respect to opportunities to build civic responsibility and professional skills of the people of Pakistan’; And ‘to encourage the development of local analytical capacity to measure progress on an integrated basis across the areas of donor country expenditure in Pakistan’. So a window is left open to monitor the corrupt practices prevalent in the relevant government departments.

Coming to the three threats as the basis for the strategy; let’s address them one by one.  The idea of minimising the direct threats of attacks by Al Qaeda on US facilities within US and abroad could help stabilise Pakistan is a matter of opinion. Ayaz Mir, a prominent columnist, PML-N legislator, stood isolated in the Parliament among the opposition, opposing a deal signed by Mullah Sufi Mohammad and the government. Criticising Pakistan he wrote, ‘Blaming the US for all our ills has become a national industry. We must look more closely at our own doings.’ In the same breath he said, ‘American folly and narrow self-interest was also an ingredient in this witches' brew. But there was no divine command that we had to follow American orders’. Identical voices are raised in Pak media highlighting that stability in Pakistan is; marginally related to economic growth of the country; and primarily related to stability in Afghanistan and termination of writ by the Taliban challenging government in FATA and certain PATA regions. Sensing the severity of latter, the army, with public support took the flag of ‘Rah-e-Nijat’ and came into action, but stability in Afghanistan is different ball game. Pakistan stands helpless in that. Thus permanent stability will remain farfetched even if the government takes control in the areas ruled by Taliban.

Our nuclear facilities falling in the hands of Jihadis is a myth serialised by RAW in connivance with Mossad and certain Neo-Con sympathisers in CIA. By Jihadis obviously the bill meant the Taliban. Vast number of Muslims living in Pakistan may not call Taliban as Jihadis after seeing them, beheading innocent Muslims, bombing worshippers in Mosques and Imam Bargahs. The way the west uses the word Jihadis is a misnomer as every Muslim is a jihadi doing jihad to help humanity in thoughts, words and deeds. Before Swat operation, the same propagandists filled foreign press with the news that Islamabad was 45 kilometre away from Taliban onslaught. The misinformation in that news item became obvious a few weeks later. During those few weeks, a good number of our political elite and religious leaders got edgy giving nervous comments on TV talk shows. According to a reliable source, even if the president of Pakistan tried to take action contrary to national interest vis-a-vis nuclear assets, he would fail. 

The third point, that jihadis might provoke a war between India and Pakistan has some truth in it. We all know that we fought wars with India on Kashmir issue. So, as long as Kashmir issue remains alive, the war between the two countries stays a reality, despite Zardari’s rhetoric following the policy of Musharaf on the insistence of the US. Having said that, it is equally comforting to know the bill stating, ‘the only way to help mitigate these threats is to attempt to stabilize Pakistan, and then, in the longer term, construct a strategic partnership that breaks the patterns of the past and promotes normalization of ties between India and Pakistan’. The idea is good but its chronology is lopsided, as stabilisation on the eastern border is only possible if a consensus is developed on Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan first; not the other way around.  India has not moved an inch from its ‘Atoot Ung’ idiom while Pakistan has deviated from its principled stand many times.

Let us hope that, this time around, Americans are serious to play a fair game with Pakistan helping it revive its stability, otherwise the nation is ready for people’s revolution; all they need is a nod from army and resurrected judiciary; the former has won their support in’ Rah-e-Nijat’ and the latter at the time of lawyers’ movement. The indications are that the two are hands in glove to bring a real change this time.

The end