Kerry-Lugar Bill – A Pyrrhic Victory

It seems the phrase ‘Pyrrhic victory’ was coined especially for the Kerry-Lugar Bill (KLB) and its long-term ramifications on Pakistan. This phrase is named after King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose forces suffered innumerable causalities in overpowering the Romans during the Pyrrhic War. The King historically said after the victory that “If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.”

Similarly, those in Pakistan who term KLB an over-whelming victory for the people of Pakistan are rejoicing over a triumph that in fact has all the ingredients to ruin our very existence. If that was not enough, our ever-effervescent Foreign Minister comes up with another pyrrhic victory in shape of a five-page explanatory note annexed to the KLB. Yes! We are living in a fool’s paradise.

Had these seamless and untiring efforts on part of our Foreign Minister not been conspicuous by their absence immediately after the bill was first passed by both houses of the American Congress, we would not have been left at the mercy of the explanatory note – which doesn’t really explain anything vis-à-vis the controversial clauses – to be annexed later on. Moreover, there are doubts being expressed as regards to the .legal value of the explanatory note.
Notwithstanding the hue and cry on the uncalled-for conditions on the military aid, the civilian aid is mostly unconditional as such; albeit with strong planning and controlling mechanisms in order to ensure that it is not misappropriated or diverted to any other use. This aspect of KLB should be welcomed, as it is for the first time in the history of U.S-Pakistan relations that U.S proposes to enhance the scope of bilateral ties beyond the situational and short-lived military alliances to “pursuing a sustained, long-term, multifaceted relationship.”

In this regard, the bill allocates an unprecedented amount up to USD 1.5 billion per annum for next five years, which would be utilized for the purposes of reforms and capacity building in the political, judicial and socio-economic sectors of Pakistan. For this purpose, a detailed set of activities have been listed under each head, which, inter alia, include building the capacity of the voters, parliamentarians and the government at all levels; reforming the police and judiciary and supporting the human rights in the country; improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the social sector, like education, health, employment, and infrastructural development; and finally countering radicalization by various socio-economic measures and public diplomacy.

As far as the military aid is concerned, its proposed objectives are to enhance the capability of the security forces of Pakistan to counter terrorism; KLB proposes no specific amount to be given to Pakistan under this head. A spate of stringent conditions are, however, attached to his portion of the aid meant for Pakistan, which have, lately, become the bane of Pakistani media and educated class.

For this purpose, the American Secretary of State would need to certify to the appropriate congressional committees each year before the disbursement of the military aid that Pakistan is observing these requirements. This certification is reminiscent of the similar certification process associated with the notorious Pressler Amendment of 1985 whereby American president was required to certify that Pakistan is not building up its nuclear programme.

The first condition associated with the disbursement of the military aid strikes at the core of our nuclear programme and its founder A.Q Khan, who might have been guilty of nuclear proliferation; but the fact remains that we associate the status of ‘founder of nuclear bomb’ with him, and thus, any conditions asking for direct access to him would be strongly protested against by all and sundry in Pakistan.

The next two conditions attached to the military aid are pure and simple legislative indictments on Pakistan, which, apart from endorsing long-standing Indian allegations against Pakistan, give undue leverage to third countries like India and Afghanistan, whose complaint in this regard might put the military aid to Pakistan in jeopardy.

For example, India has long been asserting that elements in Pakistani establishment have been actively supporting terrorists and non-state actors that carry on cross-border movement into India. So far, this has merely been a toothless allegation, which has never been openly acknowledged by any country including U.S. However, through Kerry-Lugar bill, U.S government has openly recognized this Indian position.

Moreover, the bill’s assumption related to ‘Safe Havens’ in Fata, Quetta and Muridke holds Indian official stance as well. As a result of this provision in the Kerry-Lugar bill, several areas of Pakistan would be determined as ungovernable and beyond the writ of the government, and thus entitling India or any other third state to carry out pre-emptive strikes against such self-proclaimed ‘safe havens’.

Furthermore, India has been bending over backwards to brand the Kashmiri’s struggle for self-determination as terrorism against state without any success whatsoever. By alluding to ‘Muridke’ -- which is a stronghold of LT/JD of Hafiz Saeed, who has been supporting the Kashmir struggle, the U.S congress has fulfilled Indian wishes that it is Al-Qaeda which is involved in Kashmir. This way all Indian Army’s human right violations in Kashmir will obtain immunity as 'counter-terrorism measures'.

The last two conditions requiring our lawmakers to strengthen counterterrorism and anti-money laundering laws; and asking our Army to refrain from “materially and substantially subverting the political or judicial processes of Pakistan” might look good on paper, but they, apart from directly violating our parliamentary sovereignty, unduly interfere in our politico-judicial process. The latter condition has not been taken well by Pakistan Army at all, as apparent from the response of the Army Chief.

It is, therefore, evident that apart from containing incorrect factual formulations that attempt to micro-manage the entire foreign policy of Pakistan, the bill, especially the harsh conditions attached to the military aid, clearly gives advantage to Indian contentions vis-à-vis Pakistan, besides recognizing and admitting several Indian charges on Pakistan.

Now in the light of the above analysis of the Kerry-Lugar bill, it is apparent that apart from the10 to 15 percent of the bill that imposes the callous and insensitive conditions, rest of the bill contains Pakistan friendly provisions. However, it is this 10 to 15 percent portion of bill that wreaks the most havoc to Pakistan and its official stand on various issues of national interest, and therefore unacceptable. Pakistan Army’s outspoken response to the bill is, therefore, comprehensible; what is unfathomable, though, is the intransigent response of the PPPP government, which is apparently vying for peanuts at the cost of integrity and sovereignty of the state of Pakistan.