07-30-2007, 11:46 AM
US Congress jolts General Musharraf (Daily Times)
The contents of the overwhelmingly bilaterally supported bill â which looks and sounds like the dreaded Pressler Amendment of 1985 â require Pakistan to make âdemonstrated, significant and sustained progress towards eliminating terrorist safe havens from Pakistanâ.
One provision, which has got lost in the anti-US chorus, also makes US assistance conditional to democratic reforms in Pakistan, rule of law and parliamentary elections scheduled for 2007. There is also the inevitable reference to the issue central to the Pressler Amendment: proliferation of nuclear and missile technologies, without naming Pakistanâs ânational heroâ, Dr AQ Khan, whom the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) wants for interviews.
The White House is understandably uncomfortable with the stiff conditionalities it contains for Pakistan, but there is really very little it can do to water them down as they are linked to the strategy of âstrengthening American security to prevent future terrorist attacksâ and is consciously presented as a follow-through on the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report. The bill is called the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007. However, it repeats the Commissionâs assessment that Pakistan is an important ally with creditable performance in the execution of American plans to act against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
<b>The bill then enumerates the âproblemsâ that have cropped up in US relations with Pakistan. [1] Curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology; [2] Combating poverty and corruption; [3] Building effective government institutions, especially secular public schools; [4] Promoting democracy and the rule of law, particularly at the national level; [5] Addressing the continued presence of Taliban and other violent extremist forces throughout the country; [6] Maintaining the authority of the government of Pakistan in all parts of its national territory; [7] Securing the borders of Pakistan to prevent the movement of militants and terrorists into other countries and territories; and [8] Effectively dealing with Islamic extremism.</b>
After having placed the conditionality of certification in the US President â which was also done for five years after the passage of the Pressler Amendment â the new bill wants the Administration to consolidate American policy in Pakistan, designating it as an important âstrategicâ ally who must cooperate in the programme to âcombat international terrorism, especially in the frontier provinces of Pakistan, and to end the use of Pakistan as a safe haven for forces associated with the Talibanâ. This is to be followed by a âdramatic increase in the funding for programmes of the United States Agency for International Development and the Department of State that assist the government of Pakistanâ, but only âif the government of Pakistan demonstrates a commitment to building a moderate, democratic state, including significant steps towards free and fair parliamentary elections in 2007â.
Is there a provision allowing the White House wiggle-room to deal more autonomously with Pakistan? Yes, there is. This lies in the provision that says that President Bush can delay the restriction under the bill for one year. He would be required to submit a report to a Congressional committee â in classified form if necessary â describing the long-term strategy of the United States âto engage with the government of Pakistan to address the issues described in the bill and carry out the policies suggested by Congress in order to accomplish the goal of building a moderate, democratic Pakistanâ.
The 2008 and 2009 fiscal years may see military assistance to Pakistan blocked for 15 days till the presidential certification to the Congressional committee has been submitted. What will the certification be required to ensure? The bill says: âthat the government of Pakistan is making all possible efforts to prevent the Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control, including in the cities of Quetta and Chaman and in the Northwest Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areasâ.
When will the bill stop âbitingâ? The conditionality here is not the âoutingâ of Dr AQ Khan as some of our anti-American conspiracy theorists say, but more ominously, after the elimination of the Taliban as a threat. The bill says: till the âTaliban, or any related successor organisation, has ceased to exist as an organisation capable of conducting military, insurgent, or terrorist activities in Afghanistan from Pakistanâ.
There is no other bill relating to foreign policy that is so specific. The White House is rightly upset because the legislation will cut the ground from under the feet of President General Pervez Musharraf who is desperately trying to win popular support for his counter-terrorism campaign in Pakistan. The âpainâ his campaign inflicts on his political partners in the shape of loss of popularity among the masses who are viscerally opposed to America may become unbearable. The protest against America may also become deafening with more calls to âbreak offâ relations with the United States.
The contents of the overwhelmingly bilaterally supported bill â which looks and sounds like the dreaded Pressler Amendment of 1985 â require Pakistan to make âdemonstrated, significant and sustained progress towards eliminating terrorist safe havens from Pakistanâ.
One provision, which has got lost in the anti-US chorus, also makes US assistance conditional to democratic reforms in Pakistan, rule of law and parliamentary elections scheduled for 2007. There is also the inevitable reference to the issue central to the Pressler Amendment: proliferation of nuclear and missile technologies, without naming Pakistanâs ânational heroâ, Dr AQ Khan, whom the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) wants for interviews.
The White House is understandably uncomfortable with the stiff conditionalities it contains for Pakistan, but there is really very little it can do to water them down as they are linked to the strategy of âstrengthening American security to prevent future terrorist attacksâ and is consciously presented as a follow-through on the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report. The bill is called the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007. However, it repeats the Commissionâs assessment that Pakistan is an important ally with creditable performance in the execution of American plans to act against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
<b>The bill then enumerates the âproblemsâ that have cropped up in US relations with Pakistan. [1] Curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology; [2] Combating poverty and corruption; [3] Building effective government institutions, especially secular public schools; [4] Promoting democracy and the rule of law, particularly at the national level; [5] Addressing the continued presence of Taliban and other violent extremist forces throughout the country; [6] Maintaining the authority of the government of Pakistan in all parts of its national territory; [7] Securing the borders of Pakistan to prevent the movement of militants and terrorists into other countries and territories; and [8] Effectively dealing with Islamic extremism.</b>
After having placed the conditionality of certification in the US President â which was also done for five years after the passage of the Pressler Amendment â the new bill wants the Administration to consolidate American policy in Pakistan, designating it as an important âstrategicâ ally who must cooperate in the programme to âcombat international terrorism, especially in the frontier provinces of Pakistan, and to end the use of Pakistan as a safe haven for forces associated with the Talibanâ. This is to be followed by a âdramatic increase in the funding for programmes of the United States Agency for International Development and the Department of State that assist the government of Pakistanâ, but only âif the government of Pakistan demonstrates a commitment to building a moderate, democratic state, including significant steps towards free and fair parliamentary elections in 2007â.
Is there a provision allowing the White House wiggle-room to deal more autonomously with Pakistan? Yes, there is. This lies in the provision that says that President Bush can delay the restriction under the bill for one year. He would be required to submit a report to a Congressional committee â in classified form if necessary â describing the long-term strategy of the United States âto engage with the government of Pakistan to address the issues described in the bill and carry out the policies suggested by Congress in order to accomplish the goal of building a moderate, democratic Pakistanâ.
The 2008 and 2009 fiscal years may see military assistance to Pakistan blocked for 15 days till the presidential certification to the Congressional committee has been submitted. What will the certification be required to ensure? The bill says: âthat the government of Pakistan is making all possible efforts to prevent the Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control, including in the cities of Quetta and Chaman and in the Northwest Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areasâ.
When will the bill stop âbitingâ? The conditionality here is not the âoutingâ of Dr AQ Khan as some of our anti-American conspiracy theorists say, but more ominously, after the elimination of the Taliban as a threat. The bill says: till the âTaliban, or any related successor organisation, has ceased to exist as an organisation capable of conducting military, insurgent, or terrorist activities in Afghanistan from Pakistanâ.
There is no other bill relating to foreign policy that is so specific. The White House is rightly upset because the legislation will cut the ground from under the feet of President General Pervez Musharraf who is desperately trying to win popular support for his counter-terrorism campaign in Pakistan. The âpainâ his campaign inflicts on his political partners in the shape of loss of popularity among the masses who are viscerally opposed to America may become unbearable. The protest against America may also become deafening with more calls to âbreak offâ relations with the United States.