The $3 billion Question
By
Syed Rezwi

United States decision to release $701 million aid package to Pakistan is inviting news, reports Dawn, Pakistan’s well reputed English daily. In the news the correspondent states that, the aid package is the ‘highest ever’ financial assistance in a single year. The Bush administration has been very rewarding by aiding Pakistan for its successful campaign against Taliban and Al-Qaeda elements throughout the border regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan and within Pakistan.

The fact is the aid package met quite a resistance from the congress members with vested interest in lobbies that are against Pakistan and Pakistani establishments. Most prominent of among these individuals are Frank Pallone, Gary Ackerman and Joseph Crowley naming the few, who had successfully targeted almost all the bills favoring Pakistan.

Interestingly these lobbies, including the ones heavily favored by the Indian Diasporas consider the U.S. administrations tilt towards Pakistan unacceptable and for this very reason they implement strategies that would damage the image of Pakistan and persuade the government to identify Pakistan a ‘terrorist state’. I would like to elaborate on their quandary. The fact that this monster or multi-headed Hydra known as ‘Taliban and Al-Qaeda’ the Bush administration is attempting to slay was actually evolved during the cold war era. In fact the ‘Central Intelligence Agency’ worked in tandem with the Pakistani Intelligence establishment Inter-Services Intelligence (or the infamous ISI) to create this ‘monster.’ According to a well known expert on South Asia Mr. Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “I warned them that we were creating a monster,” he went on to say, “The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan. The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan's demand that they should decide how this money should be spent.” From his statement we realize this fact that the price tag of $3 billion as contract on Taliban and Al-Qaeda remnants is exactly the same amount that was allocated to create this monstrosity.

Harrison, who has written five books on Asian affairs and US relations with Asia, has had extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South Asia. Harrison was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace between 1974 and 1996 accuses Pakistan for creating these groups to fulfill its "pan-Islamic vision" and CIA was putting a tab of $3 billion on the fulfillment of this vision.

The other logical explanation to the evolvement of this monster was suggested by Ahmed Rashid in his book "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia," the U.S. and Pakistan decided to install a stable regime in Afghanistan around 1994, a regime that would end the country's civil war and thus ensure the safety of the Unocal pipeline project. Impressed by the ruthlessness and willingness of the then emerging Taliban to cut a pipeline deal, the U.S. State Department and Pakistan's ISI intelligence service agreed to funnel arms and funding to the Taliban in their war against the ethnically Tajik Northern Alliance. It has been reported that as recently as 1999, U.S. taxpayers paid the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official, all in the hopes of returning to the days of dollar-a-gallon gas. Pakistan, naturally, would pick up revenues from a Karachi oil port facility. Harkening to 19th century power politics between Russia and British India, Rashid dubbed the struggle for control of post-Soviet Central Asia "the new Great Game."

Predictably, the Taliban Frankenstein got out of control. The regime's unholy alliance with Osama bin Laden's terror network, their penchant for invading their neighbors and their production of 50 percent of the world's opium made them unlikely partners for the desired oil deal. Then, President Bill Clinton's 1998 cruise missile attack on Afghanistan briefly brought the Taliban back into line. But the monster was already out of control, a monster, a serpent represented as having many heads, one of which, when cut off, was immediately succeeded by two others. Then United States finally realizes that the task of slaying such a monster can only be done by the people who nurtured it, and that was no other group than ISI and the Pakistan Army. As suggested earlier the reward for slaying this monster $3 billion for Pakistani Authorities. The amount was quite minuscule for the task of uprooting the menace that was nurtured for decades.

This $3 billion allocation caused the anxiety to increase among the lobbyists with special interest in South Asia and augmented their plans to deter all support to Pakistan from the Bush administration, who were also accused of having double standards. The unlimited possibility of Pakistan being a ‘rogue’ state was brought to the lime light, some of the accusations leveled against Pakistan may be much unsophisticated, but was detrimental to the US-Pakistan relations to some extent, and the Bush administration had no other way to shed off the persuasion then to pressure Musharraf to crack down on Jihadi Groups in Pakistan more aggressively.

Recently, I came across a ‘Handbook’ prepared by the CATO Institute in Washington, D.C. The handbook included a seven page policy recommendation regarding India and Pakistan for the 108th Congress. The CATO Institute is a libertarian public policy organization that aspires to work outside the traditional conservative v. liberal political framework. The list of corporate sponsor’s of CATO is quite astounding, they included Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Bell Atlantic Network Services, BellSouth Corporation, Digital Equipment Corporation, GTE Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Netscape Communications Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Viacom International, American Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Citicorp/Citibank, Commonwealth Fund, Prudential Securities and Salomon Brothers. Energy conglomerates include: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. Cato's pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc.

The complete details of the recommendations made in regard to India and Pakistan in the handbook cannot be provided in this article; I will only include some of the salient points of the policy for the readers. In their esteemed opinion the United States Government should,

• Focus on democratic India as a leading diplomatic and economic partner of the United States in South Asia and as a strategic counter balance to China,

• Reassess economic and military ties with Pakistan as part of a policy of United States “constructive disengagement” from that unstable military dictatorship,

• Reject plans to establish a long-term military presence in Pakistan,

• Treat India as a central player in the United States led campaign against terrorism and radical Islamic forces in South Asia,

• Refrain from pressing India not to use its military forces against terrorism emanating from Pakistan, and

• Resist calls for an activist U.S. diplomatic role in mediating the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.

The book assails the Bush Administration for patronizing the Musharraf regime in Pakistan, “Musharraf, a dictator whose military coup brought an end to Pakistan’s democratic political system and whose main base of power is the political axis between Pakistan’s leading anti-democratic forces (the military and the religious establishments).”

In their opinion, “Washington should recognize that Westernized and secular India is a more reliable and important partner than Pakistan in the war on terrorism. Moreover, India, some seven times more populous than Pakistan, should be the focus of U.S. strategic and economic interests in South Asia.”

These recommendations will surely be asserted on the members of Congress and Senate, in order to make it difficult for Pakistan to receive its due financial allocations to bolster its assistance in the U.S. led war on terrorism. This is an undeniable fact that the resistance against the promised $3 billion dollars was enormous. Congressman Faleomavaega on May 7, 2003 introduced the mark-up of the U.S. State Department bill in the House Committee on International Relations. As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and as the only Asia Pacific American serving on both the Subcommittee and the full Committee on International Relations, his proposed amendment calls for the U.S. State Department to prepare and submit to the House International Relations Committee and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations a report that contains a description of the extent to which the government of Pakistan has closed all known terrorist training camps, has established serious and identifiable measures to prohibit the infiltration of Islamic extremists across the Line of Control (LOC) into India, and has ceased the transfer of weapons of mass destruction, including any associated technologies to any third country or terrorist organization. This bill was followed up by a hearing on October 29, 2003, where 5 year $3 billion dollars aid package to Pakistan was also questioned by Congressman Gary Ackerman and the others who belong to the Indian caucus.

The defamation campaign against Pakistan continues through the efforts of Indian lobby’s like US-India Political Action Committee (USINPAC), which played a key role in winning over the House International Relations Committee, which is working toward getting a clone of the above resolution introduced in the U.S. Senate, possibly in the powerful Foreign Relations Committee.

The overtures by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Mr. Khurshid Ahmed Kasuri along with the Ambassador of Pakistan Ashraf Jehangir Qazi with members of Congress for damage control was late but commendable. Such engagements should continue, that will clear up the murky perspectives on Pakistan as presented by very influential and aggressive organization like USINPAC.

Pakistani Authorities should engage in dialogues with the Committee’s in U.S. Congress and Senate and work to improve relations with individual representatives and legislators to secure its financial backing from Washington which reinforces the continuation of reforms in Pakistan.

Pakistan has few friends at the Capitol Hill. Pakistani Authorities should approach and include the Pakistani-American community to pave way for any future dialogues on issues imperative to Pakistan’s future. The Government of Pakistan should seek help from organizations like Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee (PAKPAC) and Association of Pakistani Professionals (AOPP), these organizations are already busy promoting the positive image of Pakistan by attempting to engage policy makers for discussions on issues vital to Pakistan’s interest. These organizations have done an excellent job of reminding and informing the U.S. Political establishments, legislators and media of the contributions made by Pakistan since its creation in 1947, and they have been very effective in their approach of emphasizing Pakistan’s and Pakistani-American community’s contributions to the U.S. interest in South Asia.

The Pakistani government should keep the pressure on India by promoting hard evidences and facts on India. India with a population slightly exceeding one billion has a substantial military superiority over Pakistan with population over 145 million. India’s armed forces are estimated at 1.2 million compared to Pakistan’s 620,000. New Delhi spends over $13 billion a year on defense, compared to Islamabad that spends less than $2.4 billion a year to deter the mounting threat from India. India’s recent reaffirmation of its defense cooperation with Israel by signing off on a $1.2 billion defense contract proves what? Expenditure on sophisticated weaponry will deter what kind of threat? Who is India afraid of, China? This fear of non-existent dangers is instigating an arms race in South and Central Asia.

In reality it is India's nuclear missile program that has caused China to build greater numbers of new nuclear missiles, which would pose a greater threat to the United States and its allies in Asia. China may resume its nuclear testing program, which was suspended in 1996 after tremendous international pressure. China is also developing new ballistic missiles and seeking to put multiple warheads on its longer-range missiles, which may require testing to validate smaller nuclear warheads. In retrospect India had defied Washington on many occasions. The most recent is the visit by the Indian Prime Minister to Syria and the agreement signed by two nations sends a defying message to Washington. India's hand of friendship towards Syria comes at a time when Damascus is facing isolation from the West and when Capitol Hill has passed the Syria Accountability Act.

India is a much larger country than Pakistan but it also has world’s largest number of poor people. Of its nearly 1 billion inhabitants, an estimated 350-400 million are below the poverty line, 75 per cent of them in the rural areas. Indian Government has the responsibility to alleviate poverty and external debt to provide better living standard for its people. This could only be achieved through stable economy and lowering of defense expenditure, along with creating friendly ties and open relations with its neighboring nations. But instead India chooses to escalate tension in the region, when it moved its half a million well armed troops close to Pakistani border in order to intimidate Pakistan to suspend its support of Kashmiri insurgents. It was quick to blame Pakistan for staging the mayhem in the Indian Lok Sabha (Parliament) on December 13, 2001.

It is therefore, becomes the responsibility of Government of Pakistan to make the Bush Administration aware of the follies of the Indian Government. The recent positive overture by India or Confidence Building Measures (CBM) between the two nations should not halt the process of propagating and promoting facts on India and its policy of deception and hegemony.

Pakistan has a great deal to wrestle in the ‘Political Arena at The Capitol Hill.’ Democratization of Pakistan should be vital to Musharraf regime. Pakistan’s Army has made several notable contributions in order to regenerate true democratic institutions in Pakistan but its task is not over yet. The Army might have had installed a Parliament to prove its sincerity and willingness to make Pakistan a Democracy, but it is imperative that they give complete freedom to these institutions, in order for them to operate on their own, and let the constitution of Pakistan grow-up to provide better opportunities for sustainable governance. Democracy is where Pakistan will find the Herculean Strength to kill the Hydra.
The $3 billion question will be addressed again in the House Committee on International Relations next session; do we have what it takes to be democratic to defend ourselves then?



The writer is the member of executive and editorial board of Association of Pakistani Professionals and a Mechanical Engineering Professional based in New York City. Forward your comments to syedrezwi@aopp.org.