My previous post was about the disbursement of international aid to developing countries, and this one is about a unique situation faced by Pakistan vis-a-vis its bilateral relations with the US and the provision of foreign aid in the wake of these relations. US has been providing aid to Pakistan since 2001 amounting up to $15 billion, out of which $10 billion was in the form of military aid. Kerry-Lugar bill stems from the 'Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act 2009' and it earmarks $7.5 billion for five years (2009-2014) for civil development projects. The bill has been passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate and is endorsed by President Obama.
Although the bill stated the use of aid for civil development projects, it is largely believed that the provision is linked with security related matters and the common objective of the two countries to combat terrorism. The bill faced wide scale criticism from the Pakistani political opposition and military and was being termed as the 'bill of demands'. One can ask the question that why the criticism when Pakistani government is getting more money, that too for development projects. The reason the critics give is the conditionality attached with the foreign aid. Some of the prominent tenets of the bill are that the Pakistani military will be subservient to the civilian government, the two governments will rigorously engage in their common war against terrorism, Pakistani government will take an active role in development programs in order to bolster economic efforts and so on.
The critics of the bill maintain that it is the manifestation of interfering with a nation states sovereignty and integrity to be told what to do, especially when it comes to security related matters. There has been wide scale criticism of the US Predator Programme, which landed several drone attacks on the Pakistani soil. While talking about the bill, its opponents also state that there is no mention of a stance against such occurrences in the document. All in all, the bill is rejected on the grounds that it is demeaning to the integrity of an independent nation state which had been the biggest victim of terrorism itself, and that the bill makes Pakistan largely dependent on the US when it comes to the implementation of national security policy.
I personally disagree with the critics on many points, whereas I also believe that the bill could have been made better in order to dispel some of the concerns that many people have when it comes to bilateral relations between the two countries. The bill states that the Pakistani military should be subservient to the civilian government- something which is a basic tenet for a successful democracy in the country, especially in the wake of several military dictatorships that have scarred the process of democracy for the past 50 years. The bill also lays down great emphasis on the 'soft' dimensions of combating terrorism, which are the provision of modern education to children through educational reforms, access to media and knowledge, provision of better healthcare to poor communities, promoting public-private partnerships and addressing various other problems faced by Pakistan. The socio-economic development indicators mentioned are imperative for building a strong fabric for a progressive and tolerant society, and the presence of these indicators will naturally tone down the extremist elements in the society. What is the problem with the document when most of the points it forwards are the objectives shared by the Pakistani government and the opposition? My personal criticism of the bill is only the lack of mention of the drone attacks on the Pakistani soil; the US should have condoned these attacks as a part of the bill, which would have made the critics believe that they are being dealt with on equal footing, and that the US will make substantive efforts to respect the national integrity of Pakistan. Apart from this point, I think the bill is a manifestation of a joint effort between the two countries to fight radicalism and underdevelopment by strengthening the institutions which are critical to development. Instead of criticizing, if the Pakistani circles endorse this joint venture and focus on the capacity building of the institutions in question, initiatives like this can do wonders for the long term development process in Pakistan.
Although the bill stated the use of aid for civil development projects, it is largely believed that the provision is linked with security related matters and the common objective of the two countries to combat terrorism. The bill faced wide scale criticism from the Pakistani political opposition and military and was being termed as the 'bill of demands'. One can ask the question that why the criticism when Pakistani government is getting more money, that too for development projects. The reason the critics give is the conditionality attached with the foreign aid. Some of the prominent tenets of the bill are that the Pakistani military will be subservient to the civilian government, the two governments will rigorously engage in their common war against terrorism, Pakistani government will take an active role in development programs in order to bolster economic efforts and so on.
Former Pakistani Foreign Minister on Kerry-Lugar Bill
The critics of the bill maintain that it is the manifestation of interfering with a nation states sovereignty and integrity to be told what to do, especially when it comes to security related matters. There has been wide scale criticism of the US Predator Programme, which landed several drone attacks on the Pakistani soil. While talking about the bill, its opponents also state that there is no mention of a stance against such occurrences in the document. All in all, the bill is rejected on the grounds that it is demeaning to the integrity of an independent nation state which had been the biggest victim of terrorism itself, and that the bill makes Pakistan largely dependent on the US when it comes to the implementation of national security policy.
I personally disagree with the critics on many points, whereas I also believe that the bill could have been made better in order to dispel some of the concerns that many people have when it comes to bilateral relations between the two countries. The bill states that the Pakistani military should be subservient to the civilian government- something which is a basic tenet for a successful democracy in the country, especially in the wake of several military dictatorships that have scarred the process of democracy for the past 50 years. The bill also lays down great emphasis on the 'soft' dimensions of combating terrorism, which are the provision of modern education to children through educational reforms, access to media and knowledge, provision of better healthcare to poor communities, promoting public-private partnerships and addressing various other problems faced by Pakistan. The socio-economic development indicators mentioned are imperative for building a strong fabric for a progressive and tolerant society, and the presence of these indicators will naturally tone down the extremist elements in the society. What is the problem with the document when most of the points it forwards are the objectives shared by the Pakistani government and the opposition? My personal criticism of the bill is only the lack of mention of the drone attacks on the Pakistani soil; the US should have condoned these attacks as a part of the bill, which would have made the critics believe that they are being dealt with on equal footing, and that the US will make substantive efforts to respect the national integrity of Pakistan. Apart from this point, I think the bill is a manifestation of a joint effort between the two countries to fight radicalism and underdevelopment by strengthening the institutions which are critical to development. Instead of criticizing, if the Pakistani circles endorse this joint venture and focus on the capacity building of the institutions in question, initiatives like this can do wonders for the long term development process in Pakistan.
No comments:
Post a Comment