AP: "Stop calling it KLB! We have names, dammit!"
Although the Kerry-Lugar Bill was in legislative purgatory for over a year and finally passed late last month, recent discussion over its conditions has inflamed the entire country. According to news agencies, the aptly dubbed “KLB,” which promises Pakistan $1.5 billion/year in non-military aid for five years, has garnered protest from a slew of camps – including figures from the opposition bench Chaudhry Shujaat [PML-Q] and Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan [PML-N] – who insist the legislation amounts to a compromise on national sovereignty, [also see Saba’s post over at the Zeitgest Politics].
But perhaps the most significant protests can be heard from Rawalpindi, home of the Pakistan Army, an interesting development considering the KLB pertains to non-military funds and U.S. aid to the military has totaled more than $10 billion since 2001. According to the Guardian, “In an unusually strong statement today,” the military expressed “serious concern” over the bill. The statement, issued after a meeting of Pakistan’s military chiefs, noted their unease stemmed from “clauses impacting national security.” Dawn, in its coverage, noted:
Unlike a benign two-line statement that is usually issued after most of the corps commanders’ meetings, the one released to the media on Wednesday left absolutely no doubt that the top brass was not only gravely disturbed over the conditions linked to the American aid legislation, they wanted to make their views public instead of just communicating them to the government through a formal channel.
In fact, according to the NY Times, COAS Gen. Ashfaq Kayani was “so offended” by the conditions in the KLB that “he complained to the American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal” during a meeting in Islamabad on Tuesday. The military concerns reportedly center around three paragraphs in the legislation, including that Pakistan must cooperate in “dismantling supplier networks relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapons-related materials,” that they have to provide information from or access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks, and that Pakistan “must prove its security establishment is not subverting the political or judicial processes.”
After listening to Pakistan Ambassador to the U.S. Husain Haqqani make an interesting statement during a lecture series Wednesday evening, [other panelists included Sen. John Kerry and Rory Stewart], I wanted to highlight perhaps the most potent military concern. During his remarks, Haqqani advised the United States to help Pakistan get civilian control over its military institutions. The statement echoes a clause in the KLB which calls for the Secretary of State to report to Congress every six months on whether the government is exercising “effective civilian control over the military.” According to the legislation, the Secretary of State must also assess the extent to which “civilian executive leaders and parliament exercise oversight and approval of military budgets, the chain of command, the process of promotion for senior military leaders, civilian involvement in strategic guidance and planning, and military involvement in civil administration.”
Ultimately, the KLB would shift the power balance in Pakistan’s civilian-military structure, a move that is obviously unpopular among the Army, which has enjoyed its status as Pakistan’s most powerful institution. And, given that the military is on the verge of launching its offensive in Waziristan, a widening civilian-military rift as well as U.S.-Pakistan tensions are not in anyone’s interest.
It will be interesting to see how events unfold in the coming days in both Islamabad and Washington, particularly since President Obama has yet to sign the bill into law. Although the U.S. aid package has been heralded by the PPP-led government, the fact that it has garnered such a strong response from the military should give the White House pause for concern. Moreover, the military’s perspective will likely fuel public discontent over the legislation, as well as overarching anti-American sentiment. Despite the many positive attributes of the bill – the schools, clinics and roads the money would ideally build – many Pakistanis are wary of KLB, some saying it will undermine Pakistan’s sovereignty, others lumping it in with the Blackwater-centered fears. It seems, then, that the Kerry-Lugar Bill has become yet another casualty of the burgeoning civilian-military rift, one that has been growing for some time now, and one that seems to take no prisoners.
[…] Pakistan $1.5 billion/year in non-military aid for five years, […] Read more at: CHUP! – Changing Up Pakistan military chiefs, military funds, national sovereignty, pakistan army, pml n This post […]
Quick comment: Twitter user kursed told me to mention that the Pakistan Air Force and Navy have said they will abide by the decision of the government on Kerry Lugar bill. As he rightly pointed out we often characterize Army = military, though they are by far its most influential arm.
Also, observation: the media has basically framed the incident as the “powerful” military versus the “fragile” civilian government. No joke. I saw those two terms used several times – interesting in my opinion.
Maybe the Pakistan army should follow the lead of Honduras and hire lobbyists:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/world/americas/08honduras.html
It’s stunning how much the US is meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.
My uncle, a naval commander is actually where happy with the provisions of the bill. He thinks it has a lot of good in it.
A big problem with Pakistan is that the herd effect comes into play a lot. If someone says that it’s wrong and there’s an inkling of the US/Jew/Semitic, people come out in protest even when they don’t know what’s going on.
I read the provisions and of course the Army would be unhappy. Army Inc. runs this country and I know how corrupt they are. Fauji Fertilizers are our biggest competitor and definitely not ethical.
I agree – the whole “U.S. aid bill is a conspiracy theory for greater Blackwater presence in Pakistan” is frankly ridiculous. I do think that ppl who oppose the bill are framing it as such (against national sovereignty) in order TO incite the public. It’s an easy campaign to sell. People need to understand what they’re protesting and really trying to rationalize this, because $1.5 billion in nonmilitary aid is a GOOD thing. However, the aid bill will need the military’s support in order for things not to turn completely topsy-turvy.
I’m sorry, but the civilian government shouldn’t be worried about the military. They should be worried about developing the country, improving conditions and the economy. They should let the military run the intelligence and counter insurgency. Obviously, all they can think about is themselves. $1.5 billion to the civilian government?! Where do you think that money is going to go to- education? roads? infrastructure? Ideally if that money was spent on such things it would be a great bill. Let’s be real here. Now not only will the army not receive a military budget, you have a bunch of guys who just won the lotto…and they ain’t sharing.
This has nothing to do with US/Jew/Semitic issues. This is a matter of the government making a play against the military with the US as the fall guy. A country is only as strong as it’s military. I hope the US realize that they should deal with the military and the intelligence directly – the civilian government seems to be making a play out of desperation.
In May this year, I had written that the KLB is an opportunity for democratic Pakistan. http://thetrajectory.com/blogs/?p=510
I stand by those comments even today, though the discussion in Pakistan has not noticed this opportunity.
The most important element of the proposed bill is the repeated reference to the ‘people of Pakistan’. U.S. commitment to the needs of Pakistani people is proposed to go beyond the fluctuating government to government relationship. The people of Pakistan cannot be punished for the inability of their Government to optimally utilize U.S. military aid to counter terrorism. The justification for reducing and conditioning military aid to Pakistan is as strong as the rationale for increasing non-military aid to the country. The failure of to realize the socio-economic benefits promised through Kerry-Lugar aid plan will be a failure of Pakistani democracy and not American strategy.
Good discussion.. and it shows the analytical understanding of our people . In the simplest words, any aid would be good, if utilised for some productive purposes,i.e, education or infrastructure, otherwise its just a burden on the nation and will only create more greed for aid by insincere officials.
Well put.
[…] ranks. As INI co-blogger Dhruva Jaishankar (in an email) and Pakistani blogger Kalsoom astutely point out (via Changing Up Pakistan), behind General Kayani’s missive lies the military […]
There is great concern within U.S. govt. circles about where and how this money will be spent. Mesh asks where? “education? roads? infrastructure?” Check. Check. Check. There are comprehensive plans on the U.S. side for all three and more directly dealing with civilian businesses large and small. How these initiatives will be taken advantage of at the implementation stage is a matter yet to be seen. The Pakistani private sector seems to be open arms on the matter, keen to make use of this 1.5bn stream, and this certainly makes it easier for U.S. agencies who are looking to engage in civilian projects in Pakistan.
The security situation has kept many potential investors at bay, but with security assurances, many key investors have taken a second look at the potential initiatives. If these developments can be met with tangible security developments, then this could be the dual track formula for success that all parties (minus the radical idealogues) have so long desired.
Have you guys actually read the bill itself that you are commenting about it?
Yawar: Was your uncle feeling high that he actually praised the bill? quit quoting others and pls refer the bill so that one can learn why the bill will be good or bad for Pakistan.
For the purpose of this post, Umar, I read the majority of the bill. I think the $100 million allotted to police reform and training was very significant. However, some of the other terms are still very vague, and it remains to be seen how the money will be appropriated and to whom.
The accountability terms are really interesting, and it would be good to hear your thoughts on the matter – particularly the constant checking-in by the U.S. government. Personally, I think the U.S. has signed a blank check to Pakistan for too long, and we have seen very little of those funds actually go towards the Pakistani people. Here’s the catch, then: do we allow these checks and balances to be in the bill if it means more U.S. involvement in Pakistani affairs? Or do we throw it all away in the name of “sovereignty”?
Yep, Umar. I’ve read it. And I still reiterate, it has nothing that I can deem as harmful to Pakistan.
Why the hue and cry? Because it allows for civilian control over our military.
Why is the opposition opposing it? Because the wording can be interpreted as a national security issue but if the opposition thinks its the champion of democracy, what better way than to prevent another military coup, what this bill is aiming to do?
Re: Military.
It should also be noted in a strictly academic sense that out of the Pakistani military branches, we can again and again consider the Air Force the most professional, and least likely to suffer from internal nepotism and graft issues. Why is this important? Because as “kursed” pointed out from the twittersphere, only the Army is making a scene about KLB.
Remember, Pakistan’s Air Force is the only undefeated branch of the military. Lending its support to offensives in 67 and 73 against Israel (the PAF is considered by many to be one of the top ten Air Forces in the world), and the never ending army-sponsored conflicts with India, the PAF again and again was the only military arm in Pakistan largely unscathed, and nearly always successful in its missions.
So for the PAF to remain unwilling to challenge the hugely unpopular PPP government in a time where more than half of Pakistan’s surface area is either or about to be in open rebellion from Islamabad’s Punjab-centric clutches speaks volumes; particularly about how delusional Pakistan’s army has become over the last 60 years.
This is not to say that the Pakistani Army has not been one of the finest (if at best ill-positioned) fighting forces in the world, but we have to realize that a culture of corruption, self-delusion, and nepotism has enveloped the Jaish-e-Jumuriyyah. “Sovereignty” is not the question of being told the civillians should be the paradigm authority, rather it is answer of whether or not they really are. That’s a fact that both the masses and Rawalpindi’s finest seem to ignore.
-Hamza Khan
President
Maryland Federation of College Democrats
Who the eff cares about the military’s opposition to the bill anyway?
Who the eff are they? There’s a civilian government in charge of the country – therefore it is their prerogative to decide whether or not this bill is applicable. All the brouhaha by the effing twats in Rawalpindi is what we should feel insulted by, NOT THE BILL!
The Armed forces report to the civilian government. End. Of.
I wish Pakistanis for once would get their head out of their asses and realize that full implementation of our ‘sovereignty’ requires an elected civilian leadership and little/no militancy (e.g Taliban).
We simply cannot have that until the military realizes it answers to a civilian govt. :@
Good post btw Kalsoom.
Asfandyar-
Sorry I had to edit some of the language in your comment given my comment policy on here! Hope it still got your point across.
In an ideal world, no one should care about the military’s opposition to a bill that essentially calls for NON-military aid, but in this unfortunate military-centric country, the government has to pay attention. Because at the end of the day, as much as any of us hate to admit/know, the Pakistani military has the ability to change the political atmosphere in the country. It has never been the opposite, and that fact is sad.
I agree with you that the military should answer to the civilian government, and I think there was an inkling that would happen after the elections last year, but I don’t think that intention ever sticks, given that the military is founded on the idea of being the “watchdog of the Pakistani state,” however they choose to abuse it.
What’s really sad is that in the brouhaha (I like that word! nice!) following the KLB’s approval in Pakistan (in the Parliament and among the military), people seem to have forgotten all the good the bill aims to do – the aid is desperately needed for Pakistan’s institutions, and the debate we really should be having is how we should appropriate these funds and make sure they have the most impact.
No worries about the language. I’ll know better next time!
I agree that no one seems to be focused on the money put aside for stuff that the US government by and large shouldn’t care about – schools, police training etc. Instead we focus on them asking us to keep our military in check (a thoroughly worthwhile request to be honest, seeing as how we should be doing that anyway, to paraphrase Cyril Almeida).
I think we need a quick and effective redefinition of the military amongst our public. Far too often we’ve been told this gilded idea of the Pak Army being saviours and what not. It’s time that stops. I don’t mean to imply that they are worthless and all that, but just that the military is not at the top of the hierarchy in Pakistan. Or at the very least, it shouldn’t be.
Political opposition aside (mostly from morons and/or opportunist politicians), it’s the public outcry which is so depressing. How many times have we heard the sovereignty bull trotted out? And how many of those actually understand what sovereignty is in the modern world or what it entails?
Aside from the usual administrative report requests, which might be a bit insulting if you’re an incredibly sensitive human being, there’s really not much to the bill at all. Most public criticisms are ill-founded.
It’s just unfortunate that the Army is going to milk the public’s ignorance about the bill to pain Zardari’s govt as much as it possibly can.
What’ll happen if we accept the bill in its current format though?
The sad thing to me is not the reaction from Rawalpindi which is to be expected, but how quickly the public opinion lines up to defend the army any time a threat to national pride is perceived. It happened after the Mumbai attacks, and it’s happening with the Kerry Lugar bill. We often blame the army for creating the garrison state mentality that Pakistan suffers from but at times like this it seems that it’s the misplaced jingoism that’s ingrained in the Pakistani media and public opinon that is to blame and which actually gives the army the space to act the way it does (rather than the other way around).
Beggars can not be choosy !!! we have decided to live on hands out,, why do we cry on conditions,,,, oh come on !! it means nothing ,, whats matter the most is,,, do we have any pride left ???? if we do lets return this money with simple thanks .. if we to accept it ,,, than don’t show pride… be humble …
The substance of the Kerry-Lugar is beneficial for the country, now and in the near future. We should criticize the language but not the matter itself. The conditions are not binding on anyone. We do not owe any country anything. It is not a bilateral treaty. Today’s terrorist attacks on the country’s army headquarters just prove that we need assistance in rooting out this menace of terrorism
http://ahraza.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/lets-not-kill-the-moment/
You’ve made a great argument. considering pakistan’s situation overall, right now is not the time for these civil-military rifts. Pak Army is at the verge of opening Waziristan and needs as much as assistance as possible. i would have to agree with some US Senators who have already said that this ruckus has been created without a detailed reading of the bill and the intentions in it.
and that brings me to my second point… since when did we start focusing so much on the language? and if we are focusing on the language then perhaps we need to do a pro-con study and understand what’s more important: a supposed, presumed ego bruise or the money the army needs to defeat the militants and help the needy??
Boy,o,Boy!Never in the annals of history would any gift horse have its mouth scrutinized as brutally as the KLB hoss! This aid is not important to Pakistan, its vital & the sooner all stakeholders realise that the better for Pakistan & the world
The Army ‘aala command’ is fretting at the ‘horrifying’ idea of coming under the control of the ‘bloody civilian’ government but isn’t that how it should be?!?! Pity!! So many axes are being ground by various parties & if the aid is derailed, who suffers the most? The poorest of the poor & the miserable IDPs.
http://ahraza.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/bring-them-to-justice/
The current bombings in Pakistan are definitely a cause for concern. It is unfortunate that after a successful military operation in Swat and surrounding areas, these shameful militants still take pride in the loss of human lives. Then again, it is difficult to expect them to respect the value of life once they become suicidal and so keen on killing others. The Kerry-Lugar Bill is another operation that has exposed the lack of respect journalists have for others as well. From fake stories, to conspiracies and downright lies, Pakistan’s media has seen and done it all. The legal battle ensuing from the lies has only proved the malice and bad intentions with which journalists like Ahmed Quraishi pen their writings.