India betrayed an almost adolescent approach to foreign policy this week, when foreign minister S M Krishna "welcomed " an $800 million cut in military aid by the US to Pakistan.
Talking to journalists he said, "With reference to the special circumstances between India and Pakistan, and how India has consistently taken the view that it is not desirable that this region had to be heavily armed by the US which will upset the equilibrium in the region itself, to that extent India welcomes this step."
That the comment was gratuitous was evident. As a senior government official observed, "We appear to be rolling back our own stand on de-hyphenation ." In the past decade, India has gone to great lengths to "de-hyphenate " itself from Pakistan. Foreign governments have been repeatedly beaten on the head when they attempted to link the two. So for India to make that linkage was felt to be "unnecessary."
India has also repeatedly made the case to the US that its continued and increasing military aid to Pakistan was counter-productive both for India-Pakistan ties and for the region. Bilaterally, India's long-term strategic goal is to achieve "normal" relations with Pakistan. This has been articulated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself and the process of engagement currently on underscores this. US military aid to Pakistan not only allows its army to throw a spanner in the dialogue process — as they did during the Krishna-Qureshi talks in July 2010 — but also perpetuates the feeling in the army that the Pakistan state is subservient to its interests.
The weapons bought with American money have been diverted by Pakistan to arm itself against India — a fact acknowledged by former president Pervez Musharraf. Indian policymakers say this is a needless complication. As former Army chief Gen V P Malik says, "It's the misuse of the aid, which is used to augment their conventional war capability against India that makes such aid counter-productive ."
Regionally, the aid allows Pakistan's army to play its traditional double game with the Taliban and other terrorist groups. It allows them to divert their own funds towards building up nuclear weapons capability. Some Pakistan watchers have also accused the army of diverting funds to providing cover and help to terrorist groups. The US has had first-hand experience of this. Four bombmaking factories of the Taliban emptied out within days of the CIA notifying the ISI about their existence last month, according to reports . It led Mike Rogers, chairman of the US House of Representatives ' powerful intelligence committee, to say, "Pakistan needs to understand that there is no such thing as a good terrorist... They're playing this very dangerous game of destabilization by having elements of the ISI and the army sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Qaeda elements."
However, India's "welcome" of the aid cut may be premature . Officials point out that the US has only "held back" some of its military aid. According to reports of the US Congressional Research Service, within the 2010 supplemental appropriations , US Congress provided $349 million in military and economic assistance to Pakistan , $5 million more than what the Obama administration had asked for.
In fact, if you add the "coalition support fund" military reimbursements , the US provided a total of $4.5 billion for Pakistan for 2010 alone. To add to this, in October 2010, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced an increase in US foreign military financing for Pakistan to $2 billion over a five-year period, a $100 million annual increase from the current level. This is yet to be approved by Congress.
Therefore, the $800 million "cut" is actually less than a drop in the ocean. And the US state department has also confirmed that the aid would be restored once Pakistan takes "corrective" steps. Pakistan understands what it takes: sources here say the ISI chief's hurried trip to Washington is intended to start the process of repair. Fundamentally, the US hasn't changed its view of the importance of military aid to Pakistan.
The Indian point of view may just be a voice in the wilderness.
No comments:
Post a Comment