General Kayani speaks up against the Kerry Lugar Bill

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The biggest problem that the Pakistan Army has with the bill is the provision for civilian control over the military in matters like transprency of the defence budget and control over postings of senior generals.

That concern is a legitimate one - it is no concern of the US what the civil-military structure in Pakistan looks like - and it will be different from nation to nation.

It is also quiet ironical in the sense that most Pakistanis blame Washington for supporting successive Military regimes in Islamabad and this time when Washington comes out with a bill that will help the civilian government extend its legitimate control and give a chance for democratic instutions to find a firm footing, there is huge opposition to the Kerry-Luger bill. Seems like double standards are not the perogative of the US alone as alleged by most Pakistanis.

Had the bill merely stated that the concerned aid would be tied to the existence of a democratic government in Pakistan (i.e no military coups) then there probably would not have been any opposition to it. Instead the Bill seeks to micromanage Pakistan's internal issues for the sake of a little money.

That's not help, it is interference.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

Pakistan Military’s Strong Message To America & Its Pakistani Loyalists

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Top generals of the Pakistan Army issued an indirect but strong warning to Washington and the pro-US government in Islamabad to step back from infringing on Pakistani nation’s right to decide its national interest and priorities.

“Pakistan is a sovereign state and has all the rights to analyse and respond to the threat in accordance with her own national interests,” said an unusually strong statement issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations [ISPR], on Oct. 7. It came at the tail of a daylong conference of the commanders of the main corps of the Pakistani armed forces, chaired by the Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.


Analysts said this was an indirect rebuke to US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson and other US officials who have been pressuring Pakistan to take a number of actions that fall within the sovereign domain of the country. This includes the decision on whether to launch a military action in the tribal belt adjoining Afghanistan; Pakistan’s role, if any, in helping US eliminate opponents of its eight-year long occupation of Afghanistan, and whether America’s war in that country should become Pakistan’s top national security priority superseding the threat from India.

The military also indirectly rebuffed several US loyalists in the Pakistani government, including President Zardari, his foreign minister and his envoy to Washington who have been fierce advocates of the Kerry-Lugar aid bill that stops short of declaring Pakistan a terrorist state and designates the southwestern Pakistani city of Quetta as the headquarters of the Afghan Taliban leadership, all without providing any evidence to back this serious allegation. Other conditions contained in the US aid bill virtually give Washington the right to oversee the smallest details in the workings of the Pakistani civilian and military institutions.

Sources suggest that General Kayani told the commander of the US forces in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was briefly in Rawalpindi on Tuesday, that US Ambassador Anne Patterson’s recent statements, where she indirectly threatened war against Pakistan, were unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the future.

Not that Ms. Patterson is taking it lying down. She reportedly met yesterday a local politician from Balochistan whose fugitive family member is leading a separatist terror campaign from a safe haven in US-controlled Afghanistan, where the separatist terror movement receives money and financing from US allies in Kabul and also from Indian intelligence operatives based in Afghanistan.

The stance of the Pakistani military on the Kerry-Lugar bill and the US ambassador’s statements accurately reflects the feelings among a majority of Pakistanis. This leaves the elected government, with its unusually strong pro-US position, isolated in the country. The elected government, which came to power through a US-brokered deal that whitewashed illegally obtained wealth, is effectively using Washington to confront the Pakistani military and enforce the US agenda for Pakistan and the region.

Almost all the major Pakistani politicians – President Zardari, Altaf Hussain of MQM, Asfandyar Wali of ANP, and now Nawaz Sharif of PMLN – are now directly conducting their own foreign policies with Washington. This has made US a direct player in Pakistani politics, a level of meddling unprecedented in the history of Pak-US relations.

But despite this, the Pakistani military made it clear in the statement that it believed the Pakistani parliament is the right forum to decide the fate of the US aid bill in accordance with the wishes of the Pakistani people.

This is the text of the statement issued by the military on Wednesday:


122 Corps Commanders Conference was held at General Headquarters today. The Chief of Army Staff (COAS), General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani chaired the day long meeting. The participants were given a comprehensive briefing on the current security situation in the country and the region.

COAS in his opening remarks dilated upon various issues related to national security and impending challenges faced by the country. COAS reiterated that Pakistan is a sovereign state and has all the rights to analyse and respond to the threat in accordance with her own national interests.

Kerry Lugar bill also came under discussion during the conference. The forum expressed serious concern regarding clauses impacting on National Security. A formal input is being provided to the Government. However, in the considered view of the forum, it is the Parliament, that represents the will of the people of Pakistan, which would deliberate on the issue, enabling the Government to develop a National response.

COAS in his concluding remarks reiterated that Pakistan stands committed to global and regional peace, and wishes to live in harmony with her neighbours.
Pakistan Military’s Strong Message To America & Its Pakistani Loyalists Pakistan Ka Khuda Hafiz

 

[Renegade]

That concern is a legitimate one - it is no concern of the US what the civil-military structure in Pakistan looks like - and it will be different from nation to nation.

Under normal circumstances it would certainly be no concern of the United States, but here these conditions are linked to money. If you want American money you will have to live up to or atleast bear their conditions.

It is also ironic that the US is blamed for supporting successive dictatorial regimes in Pakistan and when for once they take a step that actually helps democracy in Pakistan they are booed.

Had the bill merely stated that the concerned aid would be tied to the existence of a democratic government in Pakistan (i.e no military coups) then there probably would not have been any opposition to it. Instead the Bill seeks to micromanage Pakistan's internal issues for the sake of a little money.

That's not help, it is interference.

Words of the text apart, do you or do you not agree that the kerry-luger bill will help democracy in Pakistan??

The smarter option here would have been to take the money and shore up the economy, which desperately needs funding. And it is only in Pakistans interest to strengthen its democratic institutions, a few sensitivities regarding words should not be allowed to hamper progress.

Another point that the people seem to be missing here is that the text of the Kerry-Luger bill has been around for some time before the bill was passed. If the PA had sensitivites regarding the wording of the document why didnt they make their sensitivities known earlier?? A corps commanders conference issuing a statement of concern about the bill sends all the wrong messages.

Well in the end it is for Pakistan and its citizens to decide. I was mearly trying to illustrate some points which i saw where not being raised, for i understand the sensitivites regarding someone across the eastern border commenting on national issues in Pakistan.

 

[Xeric]

Q+A-Why controversy in Pakistan over U.S. aid bill? | Reuters


Q+A-Why controversy in Pakistan over U.S. aid bill?

Thu Oct 8, 2009 5:50am EDT

By Kamran Haider and Augustine Anthony

ISLAMABAD, Oct 8 (Reuters) - Pakistan's parliament has begun debate on a U.S. aid bill which critics say contains conditions that amount to a humiliating violation of sovereignty.

The U.S. congress approved a bill on Sept. 30 tripling aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion a year for the next five years and sent it to President Barack Obama for signing into law.

But Pakistan's army on Wednesday expressed "serious concern" about the bill, raising the possibility of tension with the civilian government which could embolden government critics.

Here are some questions and answers about the controversy.

WHAT ARE THE CONTROVERSIAL CONDITIONS?

The legislation, co-authored by Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar, mainly focuses on social and economic development of Pakistan, a front-line state in the U.S.-led campaign against Islamist militancy. No conditions have been attached to development aid. But in an effort to address U.S. concerns about terrorism, security related assistance depends upon the U.S. secretary of state certifying to relevant congressional committees the following:

- That Pakistan is cooperating in efforts to dismantle nuclear-weapons related material supplier networks and providing relevant information from, or direct access to, Pakistani nationals associated with such networks.

- That the government is making sustained efforts towards combatting militant groups and has made progress on ceasing support by any elements within the military or its intelligence agency, particularly to any group that has conducted attacks against U.S. or allied forces in Afghanistan or against the territory or people of neighbouring countries.

- That Pakistan is preventing al Qaeda and other militant groups including the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which was accused of last November's assault on the Indian city of Mumbai, from operating in Pakistan and attacking neighbouring countries.

- That Pakistan is dismantling terrorist bases in its northwest as well as in the city of Quetta and at Muridke in Punjab, where LeT supporters run a complex.

- That the Pakistani security forces are not "materially or substantially" subverting political or judicial processes.

The U.S. secretary of state must also provide an assessment of the extent to which the government exercises effective civilian control of the military, including a description of the extent to which civilian leaders and parliament exercise oversight and approval of military budgets, the chain of command and the process of promotion of top military leaders.

WHO IS SAYING WHAT?

Opposition politicians have criticised the government of President Asif Ali Zardari over the bill, saying the conditions are humiliating. Zardari has rejected the criticism, saying the bill's conditions do not undermine sovereignty.

Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani and his top commanders met on Wednesday and expressed "serious concern" about clauses in the bill "impacting on national security". The military leaders did not elaborate but acknowledged it was parliament that would debate the issue and enable the government to respond. Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani tried to soothe concern, telling the National Assembly the bill was not binding on Pakistan and vowing to build a consensus on it.

DOES THIS MEAN TENSION BETWEEN THE ARMY AND GOVERNMENT?

The military has ruled Pakistan for more than half its 62-year history and has a record of ousting civilian governments, so any disagreement between the military and the government will be watched closely. But for now, no one is predicting military intervention. However, analysts say the military's public disapproval of the bill could embolden the government's critics who could take to the streets. The military could use the opposition to put pressure on the government over the clauses it objects to while avoiding direct conflict. The main opposition party of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, the last Pakistani leader to be deposed in a coup in 1999, has said it would not help or allow anybody to topple the government.

WHAT DO INVESTORS THINK?

Investors in Pakistani stocks were cheered when the Kerry-Lugar bill was passed and reacted cautiously after the military's expression of concern. The main index went as low as 9,755.66 points in the morning but recovered somewhat and was trading 1.11 percent lower at 9,727.16 at 0921 GMT. (For more Reuters coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan, see:here an) (Editing by Robert Birsel and Sugita Katyal) ((E-mail: kamran.haider@thomsonreuters.com; Reuters Messaging: kamran.haider.reuters.com@reuters.net; Islamabad newsroom: +92 51 281 0017)) (If you have a query or comment about this story, send an e-mail to news.feedback.asia@thomsonreuters.com)

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Under normal circumstances it would certainly be no concern of the United States, but here these conditions are linked to money. If you want American money you will have to live up to or atleast bear their conditions.

It is also ironic that the US is blamed for supporting successive dictatorial regimes in Pakistan and when for once they take a step that actually helps democracy in Pakistan they are booed.

That's the point, it is not a step to boost democracy, it is internal interference. Whether commanders are appointed by the parliament, President, Prime Minister or the CJSC- whether the defence budget is studied in minute detail by parliament or not, whether the military is in charge of strategic policies or not - none of this should concern the US - the structure and rules governing the civil-military relationship are for Pakistan and its institutions to decide.

What if the elected government decides to go a different route?

And the US is welcome to impose conditions on accountability and 'continuity of democracy', it is not welcome to 'run' the State for 1.5 billion a year, which is pretty much what the 'micromanaging' conditions purport to do.

Words of the text apart, do you or do you not agree that the kerry-luger bill will help democracy in Pakistan??

I don't think the conditions help democracy, but the nature of the conditions (insulting, arrogant and interfering), and across the board opposition to them (barring the GoP) have ironically so far done the opposite of what the bill was intended to do - improve America's image and improve the civilian government's standing.

The smarter option here would have been to take the money and shore up the economy, which desperately needs funding. And it is only in Pakistans interest to strengthen its democratic institutions, a few sensitivities regarding words should not be allowed to hamper progress.

Pakistan may still take the money, and reject the conditions, which will not really serve the US's purpose of improving its image, but give the GoP a face saving way out.

Another point that the people seem to be missing here is that the text of the Kerry-Luger bill has been around for some time before the bill was passed. If the PA had sensitivites regarding the wording of the document why didnt they make their sensitivities known earlier?? A corps commanders conference issuing a statement of concern about the bill sends all the wrong messages.

This is why the Zardari led PPP is taking a lot of the flak, for essentially doing nothing.

It could also be that the legislators in the US Congress were unconvinced by the arguments made by Pakistan and the establishment decided that the best way to convey their opposition in the face of refusal by US legislators to remove certain clauses, was to embarrass the Obama Administration by vocalizing this opposition right before he was supposed to sign the bill.

kasrkin's post earlier in this thread expounds on that point, on the failure of the GoP to address Pakistani interests and possibly why.
There is a school of thought that considers these conditions to have the support of the Zardari camp, and an attempt by him to involve the US in Pakistan's internal affairs to secure his own position. This is not supporting democracy, it is more a move towards 'Hosni Mubarak's Egypt'. Notice that despite widespread accusations of fraud by Karzai in Afghanistan, the US seems set to accept him because of its constraints in Afghanistan, and the US continues to work with the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, because it supports US interests.

The US could do the same with Zardari, and in essence negate democracy in Pakistan, which given Zardari's unpopularity would have terrible repercussions.

Well in the end it is for Pakistan and its citizens to decide. I was mearly trying to illustrate some points which i saw where not being raised, for i understand the sensitivites regarding someone across the eastern border commenting on national issues in Pakistan.

Perfectly fine - which is why we think the presence of non-Pakistanis on the forum is a good thing - too much group think otherwise.

 

[Kasrkin]

There is a school of thought that considers these conditions to have the support of the Zardari camp, and an attempt by him to involve the US in Pakistan's internal affairs to secure his own position. This is not supporting democracy, it is more a move towards 'Hosni Mubarak's Egypt'. Notice that despite widespread accusations of fraud by Karzai in Afghanistan, the US seems set to accept him because of its constraints in Afghanistan, and the US continues to work with the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, because it supports US interests.

I was watching the NewsEye program on Dawn News right now and a PML-Q politician read out from Hussain Haqqani's book and even I was shocked at how explicitly he had called for America to use its aid as a 'lever' to influence Pakistani domestic affairs. Its possible that Mr. Haqqani might not have activity lobbied for these conditionings now that he is our ambassador, but what is certain is that he would've been in no position to lobby and protest against them even if he wanted to, without completely losing face and credibility.

Now people are increasingly suggesting that Zardari wanted this, but at the end of the day its just another excuse the Americans have to ditch Pakistan whenever our need has been expended. If Zardari thinks that external interference, especially from America, is likely to help him retain power then he'll be disappointed.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^^ I wonder if Haqqani's head will roll for this.

I mean, as glib as he is, he can't get 'cease support' changed to 'will not support'?

Utter bullocks.

 

[Patriot]

Diplomats can go rouge.Haqqani sure does sound like a rouge diplomat and must be kicked soon.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

I think the Yanks were not totally satisfied with the SWAT ops and still blame us and our security instituions for secretly nurturing terrorists . With this kind of trustless environment wats the gurantee that the AID will continue to Flow in for the stated years to come . The moment American intersts become limitted or none in the reagion(the possible withdrawl of ISAF forces) the Yanks will enforce another Presseler amendments to chop the K-L Bill . Again we would be left alone to tackle the Growing Indian threat .

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

The Bill aims for surveillance of Pakistan Security Infrastructure . Why , so that the indians could be updated to play the right cards through their strong indian looby operating in US.
Its like teamwork while playing poker .

 

[Kasrkin]

I mean, as glib as he is, he can't get 'cease support' changed to 'will not support'?

Just goes to show, doesn't it? What he and his staff have been up to. The Americans know that they need to secure an alliance with Pakistan, atleast for the time being. The money they're supposedly giving hasn't been for free, we're not being paid for being spectators in the American lead WoT. Pakistan has proved her loyalty through blood, sweat and treasure. It can easily be argued that 1.5 billion is nothing when it comes to the excessively high expectations some of our 'friends' insist on holding of us (they themselves do spend 42 billion in the war on the Afghan side after all). But Mr. Haqqani, if you ever hear him speak on TV, sounds as if he's achieved a diplomatic revolution in terms of Pakistan's respect, image and importance in Pakistan. This is the accumulation of his 'efforts'? Its inevitable that people will have questions as to his ability and motivations.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

unfortunately the forighn telko companies are not injecting any sms in the public which are against this BILL . However the Zardari jokes continue to come .

Man this Zardari Fell for it even the yanks whip his *** through multiple channels .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

News just in: Kamran Khan is claiming that his sources in the military establishment have informed him that they have evidence such as audio and papers that reveal that some 'critical' personalities representing Pakistan in Washington 'engineered' these conditions into the bill. He goes as far as to claim that these 'personalities' (we all know who they are I think) were 'boasting' that the Pakistani Army was in for a rude awakening after the bill.

Did you read first post of this thread (I merged it so you may have missed it)? He elaborates on that in his article.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

So Haqqani should be chopped , is this the prescribed soln ?

 

[Student]

Pakistan will have to certify to the US congress that it is continuing to cooperate with the United States in efforts to dismantle so called supplier networks relating to the acquisitions of nuclear weapons , such as providing relevant information and direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks. Dr Qadeer Khan and his fellow scientist are a direct target here.

Pakistan will also have to certify that it has cleansed the so called terror cells in Muridka near Lahore and also so called quetta shura.

If we accept this aid bill this means that we are self confessed terrorist regime.

Barkie is surely trying to futher his agenda of destablizing Pakistan. Remember OPERATION ENDURING TURMOIL