Newsweek article on the importance and ambitious nature of the Kerry/Lugar bill

[karynnj]

(I know I should have put this in the thread already on this bill - but, my initial post missed why this is real landmark legislation - though some of the underlying articles begin to address it. I will try to put this and the articles in the other thread together coherently tomorrow - but this is a very major piece of legislation. It fits with all the times where Kerry has said of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan that they need to want things to be better.)

The title - Pakistan’s Fickle Ally

Washington must stick by Islamabad.

President Obama is on the verge of signing legislation that would grant $7.5 billion in new aid to Pakistan over the next five years, most of it in the form of economic assistance designed to strengthen the alliance and induce Pakistan to move more aggressively against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Embedded in the legislation is a clear-cut goal: to reduce the overweening influence of the Pakistani Army on the nation's politics and to bolster the longer-term prospects of a moderate, democratic civilian regime. The principal sponsors of this legislation, Sens. John Kerry and Richard Lugar, believe that supporting the civilian government of Prime Minister Asif Ali Zardari—who replaced the latest of many Pakistani military regimes only 20 months ago—can help solidify the emergence of a stable democracy and a prosperous economy. In effect, this law seeks to break with a past that in the eyes of many Pakistanis proves that the U.S. has been a fickle friend, willing to back dictators in Islamabad when they served American interests.

<snip>
The Kerry-Lugar legislation is ambitious—to say the least—in its attempt to transform the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. This is especially the case given the fragility of the present civilian regime, the inefficacy of Pakistan's institutions of governance, and the cupidity of its military establishment. Not surprisingly, the military establishment can be counted on to marshal every possible argument against any diminution of its long-held prerogatives. It has already started to stoke nationalist fervor by insinuating that the U.S. is behaving like a neocolonial power. The Obama administration cannot allow the Pakistani military to derail this new course of action, its objections and hypernationalist posturing notwithstanding.

Without a steady abandonment of support for homegrown Islamist radicals, and a gradual strengthening of civilian institutions, the prospect of endemic political instability and violence in Pakistan and the region looms large. Such an outlook would bode ill for restoring even a semblance of political order in Afghanistan and would herald a return to the untold horrors of a Taliban-dominated country.

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_2_1_aa&usg=AFQjCNFd28anffJXwWe_L1wfyst0Mfxkjg&cid=1448579366&ei=bwDQSvjsIpSDlgf-nK6MAw&rt=SEARCH&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fid%2F217022

Here is an interesting Pakistani article, which may be more speculation than knowledge. It says that Kerry is going to Pakistan at the request of Obama.

The Obama Administration has asked Senator John Kerry, who will arrive in Islamabad on a two day long visit during next week , to take government of Pakistan into confidence over the much discussed Kerry-Lugar bill, top level diplomatic sources told TheNation Friday.
<snip>
Talking to this correspondent on telephone, spokesperson of US Embassy in Islamabad Richard Snelsire said Senator Kerry will hold meetings with President and Prime Minister of Pakistan while Kerry-Lugar Bill will remain the centre of these meetings.

Senator will hold meetings with top military authorities also, Richard said.

During telephonic conversation, spokesperson told this correspondent that President of United States Barack Obama held a meeting with Senator Kerry and asked him to meet top military and government authorities to convince them that Kerry-Lugar Bill includes nothing wrong against Pakistan; rather it was in its favour.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/10-Oct-2009/Kerry-a-source-of-internal-meddling

[BlueIris]

1. Good read; thanks. nt

[ProSense]

2. Good stuff. Thanks. n/t

[karynnj]

3. Kerry wrote a myth/fact summary for the bill that Dawn published

Wow - it is cool seeing him use the same "truth strikes back" approach that he uses here. What is nice is that, just as here, every truth is clearly, simply and unambiguously stated.

Here's the first one.

Myth: The $7.5 billion authorised by the bill comes with strings attached for the people of Pakistan.

Fact: There are no conditions on Pakistan attached to these funds. There are, however, strict measures of financial accountability on these funds that Congress is imposing on the US executive branch — not the Pakistani government, to make sure the money is being spent properly and for the purposes intended.

Such accountability measures have been welcomed by Pakistani commentators to ensure that funds meant for schools, roads and clinics actually reach the Pakistani people and are not wasted.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/04-Myths-and-facts-Kerry-Lugar-bill-qs-02

[karynnj]

4. Here's a good article explaining the internal Pakistani politics

In the meantime the military launched a massive public relations exercise, briefing sympathetic TV talk show hosts and journalists, who were encouraged to whip up public opinion against the bill.

<snip>
It would be the first time in the history of the relationship between the US and Pakistan that Washington would be giving so much money to a civilian government - in the past it had lavished its cash on military regimes.
<snip>

There had clearly been ample opportunities for the army to voice any objections to the bill months before.

Moreover, the US bill was critical to convince the European and Arab donors to give more aid to Pakistan. They have held up some $5bn in aid, waiting for the Americans to commit their money first.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8309532.stm

What seems clear is the military wants a puppet and Zardari is not acting as one. From this you can see that the military fears that the bill could strengthen the civilian government.

Another thing that is explained is that the army met with a leader from the opposition party, Shahbaz Sharif. It also explains that they want a more malleable President - this might explain his opposition to the bill.