Open Letter to Secretary Clinton

By MNA Marvi Memon
Exclusive To The Nation

Dear Secretary Clinton,

Whilst the message from you and your government is that of peace and
friendship, the Kerry Lugar Bill passed by your legislative branch has
been one of the main stumbling blocks in this mission. The assumption
that Pakistanis have misunderstood the bill is equally faulty.
Pakistanis have read the bill and understood your intent to
micromanage Pakistan, to curtail Pakistan's nuclear expansion program
and to direct the war against extremism in Pakistan from White House.

What follows below is an understanding of the bill which needs to be
amended if relations between US and patriotic Pakistanis have to be
established. Your assertion that if we have issues with the bill we
don't need to take the money is 'spot on'; patriotic Pakistanis have
rejected your mere $1.5 billion. We will not negotiate on our
country's sovereignty and defence. And these are not mere slogans.
They are based on facts which we read out of your conditionalities
which do exist. And here are the facts Secretary Clinton:

1. The most controversial clause in the bill pertains to giving US
'direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks'.
The explanation given in the note is equally unacceptable because it
wants 'cooperative efforts' to combat proliferation to continue. This
cooperation mentioned is intrusive since it demands 'direct access'.
Secretary Clinton, we have already handled our proliferators and
believe in non priliferation. This we consider a breach of our
sovereignty.

2. The reference to Pakistan military and intelligence agencies being
involved in giving support to terrorists in the past is equally
offensive. This is a clause which enables the Indian lobby to target
Pakistan and hold it responsible for all future terrorist acts in the
region.

3. The other issue pertains to the fact that President Obama's
regional security strategy will include working with 'relevant
governments and organizations in the region and elsewhere.' The
strategy which could include RAW and Mossad would be imposed on
Pakistan for US national interest not Pakistan. And as such we cannot
give the authority of making Pakistan's security strategy to a US
President.

4. There are references to expansion of Container Security Initiative
at various Pakistani ports which we consider a security hazard.

5. The term sanctuary for terrorism implies that Pakistan is a failed
state as is included in intelligence reforms and Terrorism Prevention
Act 2004.

6. Bill allows 'irregular forces to be used for US combat operations
in Pakistan' as stated in the Ronald Reagan Act 2005. This in effect
gives legal cover to the Dynocores and Blackwaters which we Pakistanis
have major issues with and consider a threat to our security.

7. The bill micromanages Pakistan's important federal government
agencies from education, madrassah's to trade, to judiciary, to
natural resources. All aid given will be to NGOs and if more than
$100,000 is given those NGO files will become classified. As such
Pakistan will not have access to such operations. This we consider an
attempt by US to create its own financial political power bases for
future.

8. Approximately $860 million of the aid will go back to US in the
form of administrative expenses etc. This truly reflects badly on the
actual impact on an average Pakistani's life.

Here were some of the issues with the bill. Now let's examine what
aggravates Pakistani sensitivities with regards to current US
policies. And why you are not welcome in Pakistan by patriotic
Pakistanis. This might help you understand why over 80% of Pakistanis
have issues with your policies as per certain reliable surveys.

1. Firstly, the US stance in the war against extremism is biased
towards protecting Indian and Afghan interests. The TTP and Baloch
terrorists have been using these two countries and their resources as
bases for their operations inside Pakistan as is proven by Pak
military evidence. Whilst you consider Pakistan to be sovereign our
aid is linked to these two countries which we find distasteful.

2. Whilst Pakistan's nuclear program is an issue for US, the Indian
nuclear program (civil nuclear technology agreement) is being allowed
to expand without any blockades.

3. Whilst you have personally complemented Pak military efforts in
your recent visit, at the same time there are conditionalities in
giving aid to Pakistan to strengthen its military against terrorists.
Certainly these terrorists are linked to India and as such
conditionalities are one sided. Moreover, if Pakistan military is
being complemented why can't it be trusted with drone technology?
Additionally US policy wishes to strengthen Pakistan's parliament and
yet it ignores the resolution passed by Pakistani parliament against
drone attacks.

4. Whilst Pakistan is a frontline state which has paid dearly in terms
of men lost in battle with terrorists, US considers India and Pakistan
to be equals. Where is the advantage Pakistan should get for
cooperating on terrorism? $1.5 billion is a joke compared to the
billions spent in Afghanistan and Iraq, even in Turkey and Egypt. As
well as the fact that no where with other allies has US imposed
intrusive conditionalities.

5. Whilst Pakistan is blamed for terrorist sanctuaries how many
infiltrators coming from India and Afghanistan specifically have you
managed to stop?

6. The commitment for ROZs looks like its dithering. Where is the
actual support for the tribals who have suffered the most in the war
being fought to destabilize Pakistan?

7. What effort has the US played in cutting drug money which is
destabilizing Pakistan and funding terrorism considering its source of
entry is US backed Afghan territory. UN report confirms that after US
entry into Afghanistan opium production has increased manifold. This
is impacting Pakistan's security since it's ready financing for
terrorism inside Pakistan.

Secretary Clinton,

If you wish to improve Pak-US bilateral, a more productive approach
would have been to not justify the bill on arrival but rather to give
an open ear to the criticisms with a commitment to amending it. Since
there have been no such commitments it seems fruitless to meet with
you. This is even more disturbing considering that you have been given
plenty of evidence of Pakistani uproar on the bill before your
arrival. It's a pity that the bill was executed minus real Pakistani
input. This has no doubt created a diplomatic fiasco for the US.
Instead of underestimating the fiasco or considering it a result of
Pakistani lack of comprehension, it would have been better to deal
with it head on: amending the bill being the only viable option.

Pakistan might have a government which is beholden to you for its
future longevity, but there are patriotic Pakistanis who will defend
the soil before accepting your policies of creating a US fiefdom in
Pakistan. As a young parliamentarian, I would only welcome you to
Pakistan once we have evidence of your shift in policy so that
Pakistan is dealt with as a sovereign country.

MARVI MEMON
Member of National Assembly of Pakistan

This letter was first published by The Nation.