Return to sender

The media entanglement in the Kerry-Lugar Bill dispute continues unabated - it is either black or white, there is no mid-ground, no grey. The division is clear - The Government of Asif Ali Zardari versus The Rest. To give it its official title, the Enhancement Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, whatever else it may do or not do, it serves the American national interest which is supreme and which the Americans make no bones about. The Rest includes Pakistans all-powerful army. The corps commanders met last week under their chief and have made their stand quite clear. They are seriously concerned over certain clauses in the Bill and will take up their concern with the government, and when the army takes up anything with any government of Pakistan one can be sure that the outcome will be no surprise. General Ashfaq Kiyani was directly quoted in an ISPR release: Pakistan is a sovereign state and has all the rights to analyse and respond to the threat in accordance with its own national interests. Fair enough. But who will define Pakistans 'own national interests? Will it be the 'Army, Parliament or the Presidency? For the present it would seem that this countrys interests are being ill served by those that have been put in charge of its affairs and policies through an electoral process. But it has to be remembered that an election does not a democracy make - there is far more to democracy that the ballot box and the people of Pakistan, after the passage of over a year and a half still await delivery. The relationship between the army and the government, i.e. the Presidency is said to be uneasy, despite the fact that the army, supported by the government, has successfully dealt with the Taliban problem in Swat and Malakand - earning much due praise from Pakistans ally, the US. However, that praise has been somewhat neutralised by the Kerry-Lugar clause which specifies, An assessment of the extent to which the government of Pakistan exercises effective civilian control of the military, including a description of the extent to which the civilian executive leaders and parliament exercise oversight and approval of military budgets, the chain of command, the process of promotion for senior military leaders, civilian involvement in strategic guidance and planning and military involvement in civil administration. It is unrealistic to expect the army to swallow this in its own interest, let alone the national interest. Such language cannot be acceptable to the generals, nor can the present government be expected to exercise any control over the military, let alone effective control. Historical precedents are right now too firmly entrenched. Parliament is hamstrung, it is subservient to the presidency which continues to operate as it has operated for the past decade with an all-powerful president diluted only by the army or the USA. When it comes to the national interest and the present focus on Kerry-Lugar should we not take into consideration the two major 'deals or arrangements concluded, one in 2007 between General Pervez Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto and the US government and the other concluded between Musharraf, Asif Ali Zardari and the US government following the assassination of Benazir? Were we privy to the terms of these deals or arrangements it might go a long way towards our being able to figure out who sold who and what went down the drain and why. It might explain much that is now worrisome to the general public concerned with what is seen as American transgression on various internal fronts. What were the conditions conceded firstly for the Musharraf-Benazir power sharing arrangement and then, more importantly, for the Musharraf-Zardari power sharing arrangement after the PPP had successfully overcome all, riding in (not entirely of course) on a powerful sympathy vote? Asif Zardari later, through a series of cleverly overt manipulations of perceived friends and natural foes, managed to renege on the deal and rid himself of Musharraf and assume unto himself all powers held by the military president. This could not have happened without the concurrence of the US - so again, what was the ultimate and third deal/arrangement arrived at which gave Zardari his powers, curbed only by the army and its chief? The various on-going crises, including the military anti-Taliban operation and now the Kerry-Lugar imbroglio have diverted all attention from Zardaris smug announcement at his swearing-in ceremony over a year ago that he would be the first president - a historic achievement - to surrender powers obtained, powers which rightfully under a parliamentary system should not be with the president. The matter is no longer an issue, it seems, and the committee formed to regulate the Musharraf 17th constitutional amendment is either dormant or moribund. Now, as this newspaper editorialised on October 7: The bills conditionshave greatly hurt public feelings. Their acceptance in the present form carries grave and far-reaching implications. The government must seriously consider taking up the issue with the US administration. Now that the army has spoken, this will probably have to happen. Exactly who will take up the issue is another matter. However, the option is always with the government - return to sender. The writer is a freelance columnist. E-mail: jilani.amina@gmail.com