The Kerry-Lugar Bill : Defeating Terrorism with Development
By Zainab Jeewanjee
CA
The US Senate unanimously passed a bill authorizing “appropriations to promote an enhanced strategic partnership with Pakistan”. The legislation received similar bipartisan support in the House before being sent to President Obama for final approval. Initial versions of legislation were presented as the Biden-Lugar bill last year led by democrats Joe Biden and Senator Kerry, and supported by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Currently, the bill is coauthored by Republican Senator Dick Lugar making it widely bipartisan and reflecting a growing desire in engaging Pakistan to ensure stability and ultimately our interests in the region.
The Legislation triples foreign aid to our major non-NATO ally allowing up to $1,500,000,000 for their cooperation in “counterterrorism/counterinsurgency describing Pakistan’s ongoing struggles and successes against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It cites the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the Islamabad and Mumbai hotel attacks last fall among other suicide bombings in Pakistan and Afghanistan, to underscore an immediate need to assist Pakistan during this critical period. As we face mounting deaths in the War on Terror, send additional troops to Afghanistan and President Obama works closely with generals to revamp our strategy there, the bill is meant to forge a new relationship with Pakistan.
It extends diplomatic rhetoric directly to the people of Pakistan by describing the daily plight of citizens who are “especially hard hit by rising food and commodity prices and severe energy shortages with 2/3rds of the population living on less than 2.25 and 1/5 of the population living below the poverty line”. It further states: “Compatible goals of combating terrorism, radicalism and promoting economic development through building of infrastructure and promoting social and material well being for Pakistani citizens through development of public services”. And most interestingly, the bill cites Pew opinion polls finding:
“ Pakistan has historically viewed the relationship between the United States and Pakistan as a transactional one characterized by a heavy emphasis on security issues with little attention to other matters of great interest to citizens of Pakistan”.
It refers to the current civilian government as an “opportunity to place relations on a new and more stable foundation”. The bill's ' statement of policy' identifies the following objectives:
- Support the consolidation of democracy, good governance and rule of law in Pakistan
- Support economic growth and development to promote stability/security
- To build a sustained, long term, multifaceted relationship with Pakistan
- Expanding bilateral engagement with Pakistan
- To work with Pakistan and bordering countries to facilitate peace (a possible reference to mediating the Kashmir issue. President Obama mentioned doing so during his campaign run for President)
- Expand people to people engagement between US and Pakistan through increased educational, technical and cultural exchanges (possibly in the form of more student/professional visas. Envoy Holbrooke mentioned this in visits to Karachi in July)
- Work with government of Pakistan to:
- prevent Pakistani territory from being used as a base/conduit for terrorism in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India or elsewhere
- Coordinate military, paramilitary and police action against terrorist terrorism
- Help bring peace, stability and development
- (this might entail counterinsurgency/counterterrorism assistance and cooperation through intelligence sharing, arms development/trade and training of Pakistani forces).
Pakistan is aptly described as a major non-NATO, long-standing ally. But cooperation has been dominated by security issues generally in the form of military dictators supported by the States in exchange for Pakistan's military assistance throughout the Cold War and current War on Terror resulting in the Pakistani mindset of solely “transactional” relations. This bill is a fair attempt to shift that context to a more positive tone with the aforementioned objectives and diplomatic rhetoric.
However, certain specificities such as timetables and solid oversight must be transparently accessible to the Pakistani and American public to ensure that more positive relations are achieved. Already experts are weighing in with concerns. Despite the commitment to development in addressing the plight of daily Pakistanis, Foreign Policy Magazine mentions that the bill doesn’t say exactly how much of these funds are to be allocated toward military assistances. And although senator Kerry insists “clear, tough minded accountability standards and metrics” are contained in the bill, Dawn News cites Rand Corporation expert Dr. Christine Fair raising the issue of “greater transparency” and wanting to ensure international accounting standards are applied in allocating these funds. Such concerns are equally felt in Pakistan, where past commitments of economic development have not always found their way to alleviating the plight of daily citizens for whom funding is supposedly intended.
For this reason a concerted conviction to improving the daily lives of Pakistani's is required by Pakistani politicians who have ultimate control over how these funds are applied. I hope that President Asif Zardari along with the Parliament works closely to ensure monies are responsibly allocated to a "sustainable" development the bill calls for.
