The hysteria surrounding the debate on Kerry-Lugar Bill seems to have
obscured the faculties of common sense and rational thinking of its
critics, who are showing ritualistic knack for grilling the sitting
government. Regrettably, the flak directed at the government is based on
an entirely wrong premise tinged with emotional, hypocritical and myopic
overtones. The detractors are trying to create the impression that
perhaps it will be obligatory on the government of Pakistan to prove or
convince the US administration that the conditionalities prescribed in
the Bill have been fulfilled. The fact is that the conditionalities
reflect the intent of the Congress trying to impress upon US
administration the desirability of ensuring that the money given as
security assistance is utilized for the very purpose for which it has
been provided. The other aspect of the assistance package conveniently
being neglected is that Pakistan is neither bound by the conditions
prescribed in the Bill nor accepting the money in any way means that
Pakistan is agreeable to these requirements. Some circles are also
hell-bent for making out of context observations aimed at creating
fallacious perceptions. It is being claimed categorically that Section
203(1) demands direct US access to the individuals involved in the
nuclear proliferation.
The proponents of this notion are guilty of intellectual dishonesty in
not mentioning the other half of the conditionality. In fact, section
203(1) dealing with nuclear proliferation demands the certification from
US administration that Pakistan is cooperating with US in its efforts to
dismantle supplier networks by providing relevant information or direct
access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks. So by
mentioning only the direct access option they are trying to mislead the
masses. It is such a shame that those who are crying hoarse from every
convenient roof top to discredit the government for having secured this
US assistance, are the ones who lived on US aid for decades and never
had any qualms with the conditionalities and strings attached to the
money provided why couldn’t their patriotism stir their conscience when
General Parvez Musharraf almost sold out the sovereignty of Pakistan for
$ 3 billion aid package after Bush-Musharraf meeting at Camp David ? One
of the conditionalities stipulated in the Bill known as 9/11 Commission
Recommendation Act and Consolidated Appropriation Act stipulated that
aid to Pakistan would be subject to the provision “ that Islamabad has
closed down all known terrorist camps operating in Pakistan and Pakistan
Occupied Kashmir “ But unfortunately none of the patriots objected to US
calling Azad Kashmir as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. From the nature of
the criticism being hurled at the legislation, it can be safely inferred
that most of the critics have failed to comprehend the spirit and intent
of the refurbished partnership between US and Pakistan which promises a
qualitative change in the relations between the two countries , rooted
in the mutual resolve to build them on the basis of long term strategic
goals. There is no denying the fact that in the prevailing scenario ,
Pakistan is in dire need of the assistance in the civil and military
spheres and pragmatically speaking there is no escape from this stark
reality. The Kerry-Lugar Bill does promise Pakistan this much needed
supplement in return for the expectations that Pakistan would faithfully
abide by and follow its own declared positions on nuclear
non-proliferation by dismantling nuclear supplier networks, taking out
terrorist outfits and not permitting its territory to be used for
terrorism against other countries. Further it also expects and supports
the strengthening of the state institutions and ascendency of the
civilians government which is what the people of Pakistan have been
cherishing since independence and for which they launched a movement
against a dictatorial regime .What is wrong about these expressions of
hope and support coming from a friendly country and a partner in the war
on terrorism? It is indeed appreciable that the government has taken all
the criticism in good spirit and took the right decision to have the
different clauses pertaining to the conditionalities explained in the
proper context by the architects of the Bill and also seek
clarifications about the apprehensions expressed by different circles in
Pakistan as well as the concerns shown by the military leadership. The
foreign minister dashed to NewYork and held negotiations with the
Originators of the bill and other high ranking officials of the US
administration with a positive outcome in the shape of an explanatory
statement about certain clauses of the conditionalities prescribed in
the Bill.
The foreign minister after return from US also spoke in the national
Assembly on the purpose of his sojourn to US and presented an eloquent
exposition of the spirit and nature of the conditionalities. He was spot
on to say that the Bill did not impose any obligations on Pakistan and
it was in the larger interest of Pakistan to build the partnership
envisaged in the Bill. He emphatically declared that the government
would never compromise on the national interests and sovereignty of the
country. He was right because Pakistan has faced such situations in the
past also while obtaining loans and assistance but when the crunch time
came , the decisions were invariably made in consonance with the
national interest. The continuation of Pakistan’s nuclear programme
despite imposition of US sanctions through the notorious Pressler
Amendment is a classic example of responding to the dictates of national
ethos on which no government irrespective its hue, ever compromised.
The categorical statement by the foreign minister on the floor of the
National Assembly that “we will maintain a credible nuclear deterrence
for our security, aid or no aid” truly reflects the national sentiment
and our abiding commitment to this cause. But regrettably the skeptics
still seem unimpressed and have now changed their line of attack. They
are preferring the view that the efforts of the government in seeking
the explanatory note have not changed any thing as this statements has
no legal value.
The argument decidedly depicts their ignorance of the US legislative
system. According to the legal experts privy to the US legislative
business such notes do have a legal status. The Supreme Court of US is
on record to have clearly held that the agency must give effect to the
unambiguously expressed intent of the congress. In the case of
Kerry-Luger Bill, the originators of the legislation have not only
clarified the intent but also attached it with the legislation through a
joint explanatory note, which undoubtedly has assumed legal value. One
can only hope and pray that the critics and detractors of the Bill ,
instead of resorting to hysterical appraisal of this package of
assistance would recognize the ground realities and firm up their
responses in the best national interest by avoid politicking which might
have negative repercussions for the country.
