India News Online » News Analysis » Indian Subcontinent » 

Protectorate status to Pak in US 9/11 Bill

	December 20, 2004

Military assistance worries India



For years, Pakistanis had grumbled about how the US has used and then discarded

them. Now their fondest wishes are coming true with an added advantage of arms sales including the F-16s. President Bush is expected to sign a Bill in the next few days officially binding Washington to engage Pakistan into a long-term economic and political partnership. The Bill called the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act was passed by the US Congress last week and with Bush’s signature, it will become a law. Tucked away on page 147 of the 243-page Act is a direction by the US Congress to provide for the security of Pakistan, aid it in controlling its own territory, help it in resolving its difficulties with its neighbours, develop democratic institutions, facilitate its international trade, modernize its economy and improve its educational system.

The Act urges the US Administration to ensure a promising, stable and secure future for Pakistan and help it resolve its disputes with neighbours, combat extremists and become a participatory democracy. Section 4083 gives Pakistan a glimpse of the US commitment by waiving democracy-related and other sanctions for two years. Section 5108 opens the door to Pakistan receiving more US funding for education reform [to end madrasa culture]. Section 1003 tries to ally Pakistan’s apprehension s that it is merely “an ally of convenience” by extending US assistance at current levels beyond 2009. Pakistan will continue to receive $701 million a year from the US.

Political observers say, this is an extraordinary piece of legislation for one country to undertake in respect of another. It is quite likely that this legislation will be considered by many Pakistanis as reducing Pakistan to the status of a protectorate of the US. It lays down conditions in respect of Pakistan’s security policy as well as domestic policy. There will be half yearly reports to Congress and aid to Pakistan will be regulated on the basis of Islamabad’s fulfilment of the performance required of it by Washington.

Obviously, Pakistan is being doled out assistance and democracy-related sanctions are being waived in implementation of the report of the 9/11 Commission. While bringing on record all reports regarding Pakistan’s links with the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda, the “9/11 National Commission” whose recommendations are now being implemented through a legislation, had also made appreciative references to the post-9/11 role played by Gen. Musharraf in helping the US in its war against terrorism and to his efforts to curb Islamic extremism in Pakistan. It had said: “If Musharraf stands for enlightened moderation in a fight for his life and for the life of his country, the US should be willing to make hard choices too and make the difficult long-term commitment to the future of Pakistan. Sustaining the current scale of aid to Pakistan, the US should support the Pakistan Government in its struggle against extremists with a comprehensive effort that extends from military aid to support for better education, so long as Pakistan’s leaders remain willing to make difficult choices of their own.”

Some analysts view the Act as a carte blanche to President Bush to provide assistance to Pakistan on a long-term basis. In fact, the Act is to be seen along with the US Appropriation Bill 4818, a section of which suggests that the long-term commitment to Pakistan would be dependent on Islamabad continuing to serve the US national objective of combating jehadi terrorism and Islamic extremism. However, overall, the September 11 Commission was inclined to treat what had happened pre-9/11 as a closed chapter and to encourage Musharraf to vigorously implement the policy of enlightened moderation which he has been advocating in recent months. In other words, Musharraf and his country have been treated to a forgive-and-forget reprieve on their pre-9/11 deeds. But, much of the American media, the world community including India, think that Musharraf’s Pakistan has not really changed colours.

In India, the clause in the new 9/11 legislation that the US should provide assistance to encourage and enable Pakistan to seek to resolve any outstanding difficulties with its neighbours and other countries in the region is bound to raise concern. The Pakistanis may interpret the clause to mean that there is an assurance by the US to help them resolve the Kashmir issue in their favour. As remarked by military analyst K. Subrahmanyam, the Pakistanis interpreted an ambiguously worded US statement of 1962 to defend their country to mean that even if they launched a proxy war through Operation Gibraltar and Operation Grand Slam any Indian counter-attacks, as happened at Lahore, required the US to come to their aid. It might also encourage Pakistan to demand more military equipment from the US. On the other hand, any concession to Pakistan on Kashmir is likely to be regarded by jehadis as a victory for their terrorist campaign of 15 years and may embolden them to a act elsewhere in the world. Therefore, it is not in the US interest to support any alteration of the territorial status quo in Kashmir. Subrahmanyam says, through the present enactment, the US may be unwittingly involving itself in the Kashmir issue though President Bush has been asserting that the US has no mediatory role.



Security implications of 9/11 Act for India – Arms for Pak

Ever since the US decided to designate Pakistan Major non-NATO military ally, analysts in India have been trying to figure out just what is happening between Washington and Islamabad. The big question seems to be whether the new US policy is now being motivated by a desire to further US security interests or to assist Pakistan. The Americans will, of course, say that the two are inter-linked and the creation of a modern, moderate and stable Pakistan is the best means of preventing the rise of a Talibanised state. But, for India the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act has serious security implications as far as it concerned about aid to Pakistan in the name of building democracy its modernization and resolving its differences with its neighbours.

The Act comes after the Bush Administration sent to Congress a proposal for a $1.2 billion arms deal for Pakistan. Already, via the 9/11 Act, the Bush Administration has approved waiver of all sanctions, imposed on Pakistan for the coming two years. Second, aid to that country, currently amounting to $3 billion, has been extended beyond the 2009 cutoff date.

The period 1954-65 was the most extensive arms transfer era. Pakistan got Patton tanks, self-propelled artillery, F-86 jet fighters and a submarine on lease, all more advanced than were available on the subcontinent till then. It led to such cockiness in Islamabad that it launched Operation Gibraltar, a covert operation to grab Kashmir in August 1965 and later Operation Grand Slam, an open attack to cut the Jammu-Srinagar road. During the period 1981-89, the principal supply was of F-16 fighters, one of the most advanced in the US armoury as well as attack helicopters, TOW2 missiles, naval systems such as P3C Orions and Harpoon missiles. The supply arguably triggered off an arms race in the subcontinent and enabled Pakistan to complete its nuclear weapons programme without any problem. The third phase of arms transfer has just begun in 2004. So far promised are more P-3Cs and TOW-2 missiles, some Phalanx anti-ship missile systems and C-130 C transports. No F-16s yet, but Pakistan has been given the Major non-Nato ally status which means it can pick up other stuff as well.

On November 16, the Defence Security Cooperation Agency [DSCA] notified the US Congress of a possible sale to Pakistan of six Phalanx close-in Weapon Systems [CIWS], 2000 TOW-2A missiles, 14 TOW-2A fly-to-buy missiles and eight P-3C Orion aircraft with T-56 engines as well as associated equipment and services. But, India is particularly worried over the proposed sale of F-16s to Pakistan which has however, not been confirmed so far. But, when US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld came to India last week, talking to newsmen, he refused to hold out any categorical assurance that the US will not sell these lethal planes to Pakistan which are not meant to be used for the hot pursuit of terrorists and will only be used against India. Both External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh and Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee have shared concern of law makers in Parliament during the week. Talking to newsmen in Bhubaneswar on Dec. 12, Mukherjee said, the US plea of providing sophisticated weapons to Pakistan only to combat terrorist outfits like the Al-Qaeda and Taliban does not hold good as F-16s and Advanced Missile Systems are required for a full-fledged war. Mukherjee said both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Natwar Singh had told the visiting US Defence Secretary last week that such supplies may jeopardize the peace process. Weapons like F-16s and naval surveillance aircraft are used for wars and not to combat terrorists, he said.

India, meanwhile, has sacked its high-profile US lobbying firm, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Field, for failing to lobby effectively against the sale of F-16s to Pakistan.

In Washington, the newly-elected Democratic co-chairman of the US Congressional Caucus on India, Gary Ackerman, has come out against the proposed sale of F-16 fighters to Pakistan. He and Congresswoman Illena Ros-Lehtinen, who is likely to be elected Republican co-chair of the Caucus, have written letters to members of the US House of Representatives and also propose to write a letter to President Bush opposing the sale. Referring to India as “a growing world power with which we have common strategic interests”, the letter said, “if the US provides F-16s to Pakistan, planes inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons, the message will be that our true strategic partner in South Asia is Pakistan” which will undermine long-term, New Delhi's US strategic interests in South Asia. The letter said, “Since neither the Al-Qaeda, nor the remnants of the Taliban have submarines, armoured fighting vehicles or airplanes, we are gravely concerned that the systems being provided to Pakistan are intended to be used against Indian capabilities.”

Accusing India of being paranoid over its efforts to acquire F-16 fighter aircraft, Pakistan has rejected New Delhi’s statements on its weapons acquisition programme as disturbing and urged to maintain symmetry. The Foreign Office spokesman, Masood Khan said Pakistan was merely pursuing a modest programme to fill up the gap that emerged during the 90s due to US sanctions which crippled its capabilities.

Stung by growing Indian opposition to the sale of F-16s, the American Ambassador to India, David Mulford, has said the US has not so far decided to supply F-16s to Pakistan and it was “deeply sensitive to Indian sensitivities.” Speaking to journalists on Dec. 13, Mulford hastened to control the damage by stating that the US was “de-hyphenating” its relationship with India and Pakistan. It is important for the two countries not to view their relationship through the prism of the other, he said adding that he does not think the US arms sales to Pakistan would have a negative impact on bilateral ties or on the Indo-Pak dialogue process. .

Mulford dangled a bigger arms bait to India and said it would like to be a bigger supplier of defence equipment to New Delhi.

Hyphenating the military sale, sources say, the US has offered India Patriot missiles, P3C Orion, C-30J Super Hercules aircraft. But, New Delhi has sought assurances on a US commitment for the supply and spares of the defence systems, the price factor and the timely supplies. So far, after normalization of relations, India has purchased just four weapon-locating radars from the US that took 16 long years and serious hiccups to fructify.

Although the US plea is that no decision has been made to sell F-16s to Pakistan, reports from Washington say the clearance of the deal is only a matter of time and is likely to be announced soon. As remarked by Anupam Srivastava, co-director of the South Asia Programme at the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia, Pentagon is determined that if the supply of major armaments, including F-16s, is what will be critical to securing Pakistani support on the Afghan front, then such sales should go forward, notwithstanding Indian protests. Anupam Srivastava says, the Indian leadership has correctly reminded the US Government that the sale of weapons such as F-16s is inadvisable, given that they are inherently unsuitable for employment in counter-insurgency operations on the Pak-Afghan border. As happened with the transfer of US arms to Pakistan during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, such weapons will ultimately be deployed against India. The sale of weapons would be inopportune and destabilizing for a variety of reasons. First, they are incongruous in the middle of an India-Pakistan peace process, second, these weapons do not help in catching Osama bin Laden and third, these would be used against India. But, what is not mentioned is that these weapons will further reduce for India the space and incentive for engaging in a limited war as riposte for the proxy war. That, observers say, is the rub. Pakistanis never fail to remind India that it is arming itself to the teeth. It complains how this would dramatically alter the military balance.

The other view, however, is that Pakistan may behave more responsibly if the US engages Islamabad, as was seen in the past. They say, history shows whenever the US was deeply engaged in Pakistan, Islamabad was on its best behaviour. This happened in 1962 during the Indo-China war and in the 1980s when terrorism hit Punjab. Whenever American interest flagged as in 1965 or in the early 1990s, Pakistanis have run riot. Continued and deepened US engagement with Pakistan is the best guarantee that Islamabad will walk along the straight and narrow path.