Kerry's 'Explanatory Statement' Does Not Solve Our Problem: Marvi Memon

1 view

Skip to first unread message

PakNationalists

unread,

Oct 15, 2009, 5:47:30 PM10/15/09

to paknati...@googlegroups.com

Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium

without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Kerry's ‘Explanatory Statement’ Does Not Solve Our Problem: Marvi Memon

A AHMEDQURAISHI.COM Report

Friday, 16 October 2009.

WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—One of the brightest stars of the next generation of Pakistani leaders, Pakistan Muslim League politician Marvi Memon, a member of Parliament, has rejected the manner in which Washington has embedded humiliating conditions in a bill that US officials and politicians claim is a 'true reflection' of American friendship to Pakistan.

"The explanatory statement has no legal validity before the bill which will become law," Ms. Memon said in press release last night, amid reports that President Obama has signed the bill despite serious Pakistani reservations that have not been addressed. "And even if it did have a legal validity, it does not reduce the impact of the lethal aspects of the bill," she added.

Ms. Memon is the second Pakistani politician to reject the US aid bill after a half-hearted attempt by US legislators and officials to allay Pakistani concerns. The other politician who rejected the bill is former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. But observers said that Mr. Sharif, who is eyeing US support for a future run for Pakistan's top job, was not very forceful in rejecting conditions in the bill and that his statement was more a response to criticism at his silence than any real attempt at adopting a clear position on the bill.

This is the full text of MNA Marvi Memon's press release:

"The most controversial clause in the bill is the one pertaining to nuclear proliferation that entails giving US ‘direct access to Pakistani nationals.' The explanation given in the note is unacceptable because it wants ‘cooperative efforts’ to combat proliferation to continue. This cooperation mentioned is intrusive since it demands ‘direct access’. Moreover, the AQ Khan chapter is closed. The scientist admitted guilt, served time, and his network has been dismantled. To perpetuate this event, like the Kerry-Lugar bill clause does, is a disservice to Pakistan and an attempt to create a permanent excuse to blackmail Pakistan.

Pakistan is a responsible nuclear state and does not wish to proliferate ever, but this does not mean that we agree to this kind of sharing of information. Moreover, further nuclear expansion is deemed a violation of the conditions under which aid will be dispersed annually. The bill also suggests that the Pakistani government curtail the country's strategic and nuclear programs by stopping funding for them.

The next lethal clause refers to Pakistan accepting that our military and intelligence agencies had in the past given support to terrorist organizations. The explanatory note does not delete this admission. No state can accept a clause that holds it liable to promoting state terrorism. This would be highly irresponsible for any government to accept and would open the doors for further accusations from India.

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.’ Nowhere in the explanatory note is this deleted; in fact, it is reinforced because the note states that the section is meant to develop a ‘regional security plan for how the United States can best work with its partners.’

It is exactly this kind of regional strategy that will be in conflict with Pakistan’s national security interests since it could include RAW/ MOSSAD and many other unfriendly groups and organizations.

These are only a few examples in the Kerry-Lugar Bill [KLB] explanatory note that continue to make KLB lethal. Therefore, patriotic Pakistanis cannot truly accept that the KLB will not ‘dictate the national policy or impinge on the sovereignty of Pakistan in any way’.

It is also not clear how these are not considered to be conditions for aid. The aid will stop if cooperation on nuclear proliferation access is demanded and not given. The aid will stop if the regional security strategy so desired by the US is not implemented by Pakistan.

Pakistan needs the aid but not at the cost of our independence. As such, the aid coming through the KLB should be rejected in totality or else Pakistanis will be held hostage to US micromanagement and interference not just in this government’s tenure but also in the future."