By By Tariq Butt
“The legitimate criticism has helped the government to be in a position to convey to Washington the widespread concerns and reservations over the bill,” he told The News in an informal talk.
Kasuri said he had the information that President Barrack Obama might take care of the intemperate and inappropriate wording of the legislation in his signing statement. In his remarks at the time of signing the bill, the former minister said, Obama was expected to say that the United States respected Pakistan’s sovereignty and would like to reinforce relations with Islamabad on the basis of mutual respect.
The US president would also request the Congress to change the controversial clauses on the first available opportunity, he said, adding that the legislation had proved to be counter-productive for the United States.
Kasuri noted that a clear feeling had also developed in the United States that the language of the legislation was intemperate and inappropriate. In this connection, he referred to a recent statement of American Ambassador to Islamabad Anne Patterson in which she said the wording needed to be improved.
He also quoted a write-up of David Ignatius in Sundayís Washington Post to support his view about the changed feelings in the United States about the reaction of Pakistani circles to the bill.
Kasuri referred to some of its paragraphs: “The finger-wagging conditions in the bill illustrate a special form of American hubris. US politicians become so accustomed to lecturing others that they lose sight of how their words will be read in foreign capitals and how legislative boilerplate will play on foreign insecurities and anxieties. That’s the foreigners’ problem, you might say. But when a few gratuitous phrases can destabilise relations with our most important ally against al-Qaeda, then it’s our problem, too.”
Its opening said: ìIt’s a classic example of the law of unintended consequences: Congress triples its assistance to Pakistan as part of a deepening strategic relationship. But members of Congress, always eager to tell other countries what to do, insert conditions that Pakistanis find insulting. As a result, rather than welcoming American aid and friendship, Pakistanis are indignant at US meddling.
“When I was in Islamabad a week ago, the Pakistani press was dripping with anti-American outrage. And last week, the Pakistani military and parliament were both protesting US interference. All this in response to legislation that was meant to symbolise US support for Islamabadís growing firmness in fighting al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Strangely, this uproar seems to have taken the Obama administration by surprise, with senior officials initially denouncing as inaccurate a Tuesday New York Times story that reported Pakistani anger and opposition to the bill. Richard Holbrooke, the administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, should have seen this one coming.”