Blog

Last night, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s (R-Calif) amendment to cut funding for Pakistan was soundly defeated 84-335. As with Rohrabacher’s bill supporting the balkanization of Pakistan, though, it was unlikely that this proposal would go anywhere to begin with.

After Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan last year, House members contemplated a number of measures that would have cut aid to Pakistan. Two amendments proposing to cut aid to Pakistan were defeated, however, as lawmakers decided that cutting aid would be in neither country’s interests.

Still, Pakistan and its representatives in the US did not take it for granted that Rohrabacher’s amendment would meet the same fate. Pakistan’s Ambassador, Sherry Rehman, was seen working the Hill late Thursday, explaining Pakistan’s position to Members of Congress. After 8pm, the Pakistani Ambassador Tweeted that she had been working the Hill until the vote was assured.

Writing for the blog “emptywheel”, Jim White makes an astute observation:

“…the Pakistani government is not a monolith that always acts with all of its participants working together for the same outcome. Rather than supporting those within Pakistan who will advance US interests, Rohrabacher wants to punish all of Pakistan because of those who work against US interests.

Using aid as part of a “carrots and sticks” approach to Pakistan has failed in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. It’s a strategy that fails because it feeds anti-American narratives at the expense of moderate, democratic forces in civil society. US lawmakers recognize this, as was demonstrated by Sen. McCain’s acknowledgement earlier this week that “one of the gravest mistakes in recent history was the so-called Pressler Amendment” which cut off aid to Pakistan in the 1990s, resulting in the “trust deficit” that continues to plague US-Pakistan relations.

Officials from both countries will travel to Chicago this weekend to continue critical discussions around bilateral cooperation on issues of national security. The defeat of Rep. Rohrabacher’s amendment ensures that these discussions will not be burdened by the repetition of past mistakes.

During a press briefing yesterday, Pentagon spokesman George Little did not rule out a formal apology for an attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers last November. Responding to a direct question about whether the US has ruled out an apology in this case, the Mr. Little expressed “deep regret” over the incident without rejecting the possibility that a formal apology will be forthcoming.

MR. LITTLE:  We’ve expressed — you mean, for the border incident that took place in November?  Well, I would reiterate what we said in December, and that is that we’ve expressed deep regret and extended our condolences to the Pakistani people, to the Pakistani government, and of course to the families of the loved ones who were lost and of course those who were injured in the incident as well.  So we have been clear about expressing regret for that incident, and the goal now is to press ahead, move forward, and reinvigorate the relationship with our Pakistani partners.

Domestic politics, especially during the heat of a presidential campaign, may make the delivery of a more formal apology to Pakistan difficult. The fact that the Pentagon continues to express deep regret and sincere condolences to Pakistan for the tragic incident, however, suggests that the possibility remains open that one will be coming in the future when domestic political conditions allow for it.

Q: Thank you, Senator McCain. I’m a former World Bank official and former senator from Pakistan. I — Pakistan is a key ally to United States and, in fact, only non-NATO ally. Next week is Chicago Summit. What do you see the role of Pakistan? Thank you.

SEN. MCCAIN: Pakistan is vital to United States national security interests for a broad variety of reasons, including the nuclear inventory that Pakistan has, including the fact that Pakistan’s role in the region is vital, not to mention relations with India.

But we have to operate in our relations with Pakistan with the realization that the ISI has close relations with the Haqqani network, and they are carrying out activities that kill Americans. Now, that’s just an assessment that cannot be refuted by the facts, and it saddens me.

We were talking earlier, just before this — (inaudible) — one of the gravest mistakes in recent history was the so-called Pressler Amendment, which basically cut off our military-to military relations, and we are paying, still paying a very heavy price for.

I think there are some who would argue that Pakistan is a failed state. I don’t argue that, but I do — could argue plausibly that the politics in Pakistan are very, very unsettled, to say the least.

And it is in our interest to have good relations with Pakistan. It is in our interest to aid Pakistan and try to assist them to a better democracy and a lessening of corruption and a severing of relations between the ISI and the Haqqani network. But we cannot force it. If there is any lesson we should have to learn over and over again, we can’t force the Pakistani government and people to change their ways unless they want to.

And it’s so disheartening sometimes to see the lack of progress towards a meaningful democracy and rule of law and all the things that we would hope that the Pakistanis might achieve. But whether we are successful in persuading them or not, Pakistan will remain a country that is vital to United States national security interests. I don’t have to draw for you the various scenarios of a breakdown in their government.

I have refrained from writing about the recent conviction of Pakistan’s Prime Minister on contempt of court charges because the case, from my perspective – as well as many whom I’ve talked with – is a bit confusing. Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped much of the mainstream media from publishing alarming reports that could easily misguide people into thinking that the case means more than it does.

The day the Court announced its decision, CBS News declared that, Pakistan’s government “was thrown in turmoil…after Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was convicted on a contempt-of-court charge by the country’s Supreme Court,” and went on to quote anonymous western diplomats in Islamabad predicting that, “early elections are a very real possibility because of this turmoil.”

A few days later, however, both houses of Pakistan’s parliament passed resolutions voicing “complete confidence” in the embattled Prime Minister. Opposition politicians continue to try to make hay of the Prime Minister’s conviction, but the election of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) candidate Usman Bhatti to a seat deep in the constituency of the opposition Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) suggests that Pakistani voters do not see the case as particularly damning.

Other news reports exaggerate not the fallout from, but the nature of the conviction. Foreign Policy magazine published an otherwise informative analysis by AEI’s Reza Nasim Jan with the glaringly misleading headline, “Pakistan’s Federal Felon”.

While the Supreme Court’s case has created confusion even among Pakistani legal experts, there is significant reason to believe that the case is not as severe as opposition politicians may be trying to make it out to be.

In its order, the Supreme Court did not invoke Section 6 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 which specifically defines the requirements for criminal contempt. In fact, reading Section 6, it’s pretty clear why – it doesn’t appear to apply to the Prime Minister’s case.

The Prime Minister was charged with a violation of Article 204(2) of the Constitution read with Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003. Together, these broadly-worded laws basically define ‘Contempt of Court’ as anything that a Judge deems contemptuous – political cartoonists beware. The Prime Minister was punished under Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003, which provides for a fine and jail time. His actual sentence was about 30-seconds.

Additionally, prior to the Supreme Court announcing its decision, Pakistani media reported that the Prime Minister had been charged with civil contempt:

The bench of the Supreme Court had charged the prime minister with civil contempt, instead of judicial or criminal contempt. The absence of the latter two, according to legal experts, meant that the provisions of Article 63(1 g or h) of the Constitution may not apply and hence the prime minister would not be disqualified from being a parliamentarian if convicted.

It is also noteworthy that, in the Supreme Court’s order, the justices wrote that “the findings and the conviction for contempt of court recorded above are likely to¹ entail some serious consequences in terms of Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution…” As legal analyst Waris Husain noted in Dawn,

The Court used the language “likely to entail” because the right to terminate parliamentarians’ tenure is constitutionally vested in the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Election Commission. Under Article 63 (2), once the Speaker has received notice of a parliamentarian’s conviction, he/she may forward the issue to the Election Board within 30 days which must make a decision within 90 days. This process is the exclusive duty of the legislative department, rather than the Court. Therefore, the process to disqualify the prime minister has only just begun.

Without doubt, the conviction was a blow to the Prime Minister and an unwanted distraction for the governing coalition – especially as negotiations with the US continue. But, as pointed out by the State Department, “this as an internal domestic issue…and is being addressed in a legitimate and democratic fashion by the Pakistani judicial system.”

Sensational and misleading media reports not only add to confusion about the issue in the US, they can add to confusion in Pakistan as well, unnecessarily calling into doubt the independence of Pakistani institutions and indirectly interfering with the democratic process.

Pakistan’s Supreme Court rendered its decision in the Prime Minister’s case, and it chose not to remove him from office. The Prime Minister has the right to appeal, and the decision of whether he will remain Prime Minister rests with the democratically elected representatives of the people of Pakistan. The process may seem noisy and confusing to us in the US, but – so far – it appears to be working.

¹ Emphasis added

Domestic politics appears to be interfering with ongoing negotiations between US and Pakistani officials. President Obama’s Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Marc Grossman, spent the past week in Pakistan holding high-level meetings with the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet. Hopes were that an agreement would be reached that would result in the re-opening of NATO supply lines and the resumption of military aid. As Grossman boarded a plane back to Washington on Friday, however, no agreement had been reached.

At issue, is seems, is less disagreement about issues of foreign policy than the realities of domestic politics.

[T]here was an undeniable sense of wariness, driven by the pressures of domestic politics, with Mr. Obama facing re-election this year and Pakistan due for elections in the coming 12 months. Pakistanis’ rage has been rising since a shooting in Lahore in January 2011 that involved a C.I.A. employee and fueled common fantasies about being overrun by rogue spies. The American operation to kill Osama bin Laden a few months later was taken as a stunning breach of Pakistan’s sovereignty.

An American apology is also problematic given Republican pressures weighing on Mr. Obama and the hostility of a Congress with little patience for Pakistan. “The politics of election year in both countries are slowing down the resolution of admittedly vexed issues in an environment of persistent mistrust,” said Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador to Washington.

President Obama is loathe to hand his Republican opponents the political ammunition of a public apology just a few months before national elections. Pakistan, too, has general elections looming, and President Zardari faces public outcry by the ‘Defense of Pakistan Council’, a coalition of retired military officers, militant groups and right-wing religious parties aligned with Imran Khan’s political party, the PTI.

Negotiations on key issues will continue, but a mutually-acceptable outcome may be harder to reach than it would in an election off-year. That’s not because the US and Pakistan do not share a number of mutual interests, but because they also share a democratic political system that makes reaching bi-lateral agreements significantly harder.

This month has seen significant developments in the hope for peace and stability in South Asia. President Zardari traveled to Delhi for one-on-one talks with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Both sides reported that the meeting went very well, and Prime Minister Singh has accepted an invitation from the Pakistani president to visit Pakistan soon.

The bilateral meeting preceded an unrelated trade fair in New Delhi where Pakistani businesses showed off their products to Indian buyers and investors, and India opening up to foreign investment from Pakistan “to deepen our economic engagement.”

But it isn’t just economic ties that have improved recently. President Zardari’s trip almost didn’t happen after an avalanche buried over 100 Pakistani soldiers stationed on the remote Siachen glacier a few days prior.

The tragedy at Siachen served as a stark reminder of the decades-long military standoff that has dominated security concerns in the region, diverting vast resources to defense budgets in both Pakistan and India. From Delhi, Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari Tweeted, “It is such a shame tht 2 countries w/ such large segments of our population live in desperate poverty must spend so much on weapons” – a sentiment soon echoed by Pakistan’s military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.

“Peaceful coexistence between the two neighbours is very important so that everybody can concentrate on the well-being of the people,” he told reporters…“We in the army understand very well that there should be a very good balance between defence and development. You cannot be spending on defence alone and forgetting about development,” he said.

“Ultimately the security of a country is not only that you secure boundaries and borders but it is when people that live in the country feel happy, their needs are being met. Only in that case will a country be truly safe.” He said national security should be a comprehensive concept.

In a further sign of progress, India’s Defense Minister, M.M. Pallam Raju, welcomed Gen. Kayani’s remarks.

With general elections expected in Pakistan next year and the year after in India, either government could change hands. Fortunately, the political environment appears to have changed to such an extent that even President Zardari’s biggest rival, Pakistan Muslim League – Nawaz (PML-N) President Nawaz Sharif praised Zardari’s visit to Delhi and encouraged further efforts to improve bilateral relations.

Looking back over the past four years of democratic rule, Pakistanis are asking themselves what democracy has delivered. With the economy and internal security situation suffering from the effects of terrorism, it is a complicated question for many. A breakthrough on resolving longstanding differences with India, however, could lay the foundation for a new era of peace and prosperity in the region. That’s a success many long believed unachievable.

On Tuesday, Pakistani journalist Zahid Hussain spoke at the Wilson Center on the topic of Pakistan-US relations. During the course of his speech, Mr. Hussain touched on several important issues including blowback from increased drone strikes, differences in priorities vis-a-vis Afghanistan, and the burden of perceived historical rebuffs. One issue in particular, though, stood out – the effect of domestic politics on foreign policy.

Domestic politics is a reality that affects foreign policy not only in Pakistan, but in all countries. Recently, President Obama was overheard telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have “more flexibility” after this year’s elections are over. The situation in Pakistan is no different.

Earlier this year, by elections and Senate elections in Pakistan boosted the Pakistani People’s Party’s (PPP) representation in parliament. But general elections for the National Assembly scheduled for next year puts the majority of seats in play. As a result, politicians are under intense scrutiny not only by the public, but by their opponents as well.

It is through this lens that we should view debates about redefining terms of engagement with the US taking place in Pakistan’s Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS). Recommendations from the PCNS were expected weeks ago, but the process has been slow due to both boycotts by opposition parties and a general cautiousness about tackling sensitive issues such as drones and re-opening NATO supply lines with elections looming.

Despite taking longer than anticipated, however, the committee appears to have achieved a breakthrough as the PPP and opposition parties have managed to find consensus on tough issues. Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US, Sherry Rehman, remarked at the beginning of the process that the parliamentary review of US-Pakistan relations was “a success for democracy,” and it appears she was right. Democracy has never been fast moving, but by building consensus among political parties, it is the only way to develop sustainable policies.

Not all foreign policy decisions can be made through pure consensus, though, and it is in this area where political leadership is put to the test. In 2009, President Barack Obama demonstrated took the extraordinary step of addressing the Muslim world from Cairo, seeking “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”

Obama’s speech drew sharp criticism from many American conservatives, including Mitt Romney, for “apologizing” for past American mistakes.

Similarly, Pakistan’s President Zardari transcended historic mistrust last weekend when he became the first Pakistani head of state to visit India in almost a decade. Right wing organizations in Pakistan vocally opposed the president’s trip. Zardari made the trip anyway, and a few days later India’s Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai told The Wall Street Journal that his country is willing to open a new dialogue with Pakistan about resolving issues over the disputed area of Kashmir.

In the modern world, domestic politics is rarely confined to domestic issues. Complex issues of international relations are widely reported and discussed among local populations, and political leaders must make decisions based not only on what the believe is in the best interests of their country, but within a range of policies that can receive domestic support.

In mature democracies, this means that foreign policy is informed by consensus derived from the people’s elected representatives, and executed by the country’s leadership. The people of Pakistan have long cried out for change in relations with both the US and India. Recent events give reason to believe their democracy has matured to a stage that can deliver it.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta says there is no evidence that any Pakistani government official knew about Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts prior to his death last May. Speaking to Peter Mansbridge with CBC Television, Sec. Panetta said none of the material collected in the raid on bin Laden’s hideout in Abbottabad has suggested any official Pakistani support.

MR. MANSBRIDGE: Now you mention how – you took a lot of material out of that compound and you’ve now had almost a year to go through it all. Have you been able to determine, in what you’ve seen, any direct connection with Pakistan for his ability to live and operate within a stone’s throw of Pakistan’s – one of its most important military installations?

SEC. PANETTA: I have not. And you know, there’s been a lot of material. They’ve gone through a lot of material. We haven’t had access to, obviously, all of the analysis that’s been done, but I have not heard any kind of evidence that involved a direct connection to the Pakistanis. Obviously the concern has always been how could a compound like this, how could bin Laden be in an area where there were military establishments, where we could see the military operating and not have them know.

MR. MANSBRIDGE: And how could it? How could it operate there without their knowledge?

SEC. PANETTA: Well, you know, these situations sometimes, you know, the leadership within Pakistan [sic] is obviously not aware of certain things and yet people lower down in the military establishment find it very well, they’ve been aware of it. But bottom line is that we have not had evidence that provides that direct link.

Sec. Panetta is not the first US official to come to this conclusion. Last fall, former CIA station chief in Islamabad, Robert Grenier, told Express News that there is no evidence Pakistani officials had any knowledge of bin Laden’s whereabouts.

This does not, however, mean that Osama bin Laden had no support network in Pakistan. This week, the US government announced a $10 million bounty for Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the founder of terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba which is suspected of having ties to al Qaeda. And the US is not the only country that wants Hafiz Saeed. Pakistan’s own government has arrested Hafiz Saeed in the past, only to see their attempts to bring him to justice thwarted by the country’s Supreme Court who ordered the militant leader freed.

While there is no evidence that Hafiz Saeed and his Lashkar-e-Taibi militant group facilitated bin Laden’s living in Pakistan, the way that militant leaders like Hafiz Saeed play “cat and mouse” games with Pakistani law enforcement suggests that unofficial support networks for militant extremists do exist and are hard to penetrate. If Pakistan’s different militant groups are operating synergistically, it could make connections between militant leaders like Osama bin Laden and Hafiz Saeed difficult to substantiate.

The US and Pakistan have a shared goal in ending the scourge of terrorism and bringing militant leaders to justice. Successfully ending militant violence requires cooperation between both countries. That begins with recognizing who are friends are.

Abdul Sattar Edhi, 84, gave up everything to devote his life to helping Pakistan’s poorest. From standing on the foot paths to beg for the poor, to establishing Pakistan’s biggest network of shelter homes and ambulance service, here is the selfless journey of a true living saint.