By Supna Zaidi
Rumors flew upon the passing of the Kerry-Lugar bill that the Pakistani Ambassador to the US , Hussain Haqqani, would be imminently fired for giving up Pakistani sovereignty in return for $7.5 billion dollars in much needed aid to combat the Taliban and its allies. Ignoring the latest wave of Taliban violence, which has killed men and women in U.N. offices, police stations, universities and any other meaningful targets in major cities, many Pakistanis are more concerned with threats to their ego.
Arguments against the US "micro-managing" Pakistani domestic affairs, concerns US intentions in the region. Does the US have a colonial agenda? Does the US only speak of democracy and human rights, but sideline its needs in countries like Pakistan when US economic and/or foreign policy needs require otherwise? Lastly, what of India and the Kashmir issue? Does Pakistan not have a right to build counter-relationships to India , and why is it that America seems so pro-India? Such anti-Americanism is evident online and in statements given to columnist Salman Masood's article against the Kerry-Lugar Bill in the October 8 issue of New York Times.
The perception is that America moves in on other nations when it needs something, but quickly leaves, without considering how it has left the local population. During the Cold War, the US fomented religious extremism to combat Communism with the help of the Saudis, who spent millions if not billions, on religious indoctrination. The US gave guns, money and glorified the mujahideen. So, it's all our fault. Per President Zardari, we owe Pakistan . We should give financial aid without conditions.
The arguments for America are stronger. Once the US left, Pakistan continued to nurture the mujahideen in a country where civil society, schools, infrastructure, and any other semblance of daily life was gone. Babies born during the Russian invasion were not taught the values of human rights or democracy, but theocratic religion. They grew up to be Talibs, who organized and expanded their network under Pakistani military and intelligence support. The latter hoped that strong ties to the Taliban would make Afghanistan a satellite of Pakistan . A needed partner in South Asia, where India continues to grow and contest Pakistan 's claims to Kashmir , a disputed territory since the British left in 1947. Religion justified Pakistan 's claim to the region, where the majority are Muslim.
In fact, jihadism in Pakistan predates the American presence in the region. The British began preparations to leave the subcontinent in the 1940s. Pakistan did not have a standing army ready. India kept the military infrastructure built under the British. With Kashmir unresolved, and contested between the two parties, Pakistan feared India would have control very quickly, so it began a proxy war in Kashmir using the rhetoric of jihad to incite fighters.
The mistake Pakistan and the US made was thinking they could use jihadism like a tool, and put it away when it was no longer useful. Jihadism, in fact, has always been a part of Muslim history. Sometimes dormant, sometimes active, but always there. Pakistan 's indifference to this fact and insistence on playing the passive victim for its domestic problems makes any provision for without conditions a foolish endeavor.
Pakistani's who criticize the Kerry-Lugar bill would do themselves and Pakistan a service by taking that same anti-American energy and re-directing it at their Parliament and President, who have prevented democracy, civil society and basic human rights from taking root in the nation, preferring to line their pockets for decades:
* Benazir Bhutto was the alleged secular liberal. She famously was accused of stealing millions during the 90s, buying a mansion in London , and filling it with relics that belonged in a museum. And let's not ignore the fact that this woman failed to repeal the hudood laws, which codified misogynistic Islamic laws passed under the first wave of Pakistani Islamization under Zia ul-Haq.
* Purported Saudi stooge and Islamist Nawaz Sharif was deported to Saudi Arabia for ten years under corruption charges.
* Or the alleged pro-democrat Pervez Mush ruff, who sacked the judiciary when it dared to review cases that made him or the nation look bad internationally. In one foreign interview, he implied that rape claims by Pakistani women (think Mukhtar Mai) were a popular way of getting attention and a greencard to Canada.
All but Musharaf are feudal landlords. Democracy is not in their interest because it means empowering the indentured servant on their lands. Considering land reforms to redistribute resources to millions, as India did in its beginning, is not taken seriously in Pakistan . Musharraf was a general who saw the military, not as a protective force for the people, but a political party and because it was the military, it was not accountable to the public. Thus, democracy was only given lip-service again under his administration.
There is no way to give Pakistan aid without supervising the money trail. It is unfortunate that such a requirement treats an equal and separate nation like a child. But Pakistan gives itself little choice. And with the continued war on terror, the international community, not just the US needs to hold Pakistan accountable.
(Supna Zaidi is assistant director of Islamist Watch, a project at the Middle East Forum and editor of Muslim World Today.)
