STATEMENT OF REP. GARY L. ACKERMAN, Chairman
Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia
U.S. POLICY IN SOUTH ASIA
In South Asia, the United States is confronted by all of the transnational foreign policy threats that have thus far dominated the early years of the 21st Century, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, narcotics trafficking, and infectious diseases. And with the exception of India, the rest of the nations in the region are either ill-equipped to confront these challenges or simply choose not to. These states suffer under varying degrees of dysfunctionality stemming from weak political institutions, poor governance and corruption and could, if pushed the wrong way at the wrong time, fail. We already know the potential consequences of a failed state. September 11 taught us that.
And as a result of September 11, our nation is now deeply engaged in South Asia both militarily and diplomatically in a way we have not been since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980's. While we would all prefer that our engagement in the region was purely diplomatic, I think we all believe that the fight in Afghanistan is one we have to win and one we can win. No one thought our work in Afghanistan would be easy. But I do think there was an expectation that after 5 years of effort we'd be further along in dispatching al Qaeda and the Taliban as entities that could threaten us or undermine the development of a democratic and prosperous Afghanistan.
The fundamental problem in Afghanistan is a lack of security. To many of us on this committee it has been obvious for some time that the place we need a surge is not Baghdad, but Kandahar. The place where our money, our diplomacy and our soldiers can still win is not Iraq, but Afghanistan.
Secretary Rice said recently that "America is committed to Afghanistan's future and will be committed." The fact that she had to say this at all is telling. It demonstrates that 5 years of U.S. efforts have, to date, failed to convince the Afghan people that we are committed to their success. The President's request for an additional $10.6 Billion for Afghanistan over the next 2 years further underlines that he took his eye off the ball when he took us to Iraq.
And while we were preoccupied in Iraq, the problems in Afghanistan grew, in the form of poppy and in the form of a revived Taliban. The U.N estimates that Afghanistan produced $3 billion dollars worth of opium last year as disillusioned Afghan farmers return to the crop that they know will allow them to feed their families. The State Department last week released estimates that this year's crop will be another record. While the farmers get only a small portion of the take, alarmingly, the Taliban and al Qaeda capture an ever growing share ensuring that they will have more than enough money to operate against the Afghan people and against us.
In addition to money, the Taliban and al Qaeda have something else terrorists need: sanctuary. That sanctuary comes courtesy of our great friends in Pakistan whose inability or unwillingness to control the frontier provinces of their own territory allows the movement of goods, money and terrorists back and forth across the border. Indeed, I have long believed that the government of Pakistan has made a strategic decision to help us with al Qaeda but turn a blind eye towards the Taliban in the belief that their former allies will once again prove useful to them in their regional maneuvering against India and Iran. What other conclusion could one draw when our own military commanders testify that it is "generally accepted" that Taliban leaders operate openly in Quetta, one of Pakistan's largest cities? Indeed the showboat arrest of the former Taliban Defense Minister Mullah Obaidullah, in Quetta, during Vice President Cheney's visit reinforces the conclusion that Pakistan could act against the Taliban, if they were only willing. Even if you believe that Pakistan is doing all it can to assist us in the war on terror, the evidence shows that it is not enough and it is harming U.S. interests in Afghanistan and undermining Afghan efforts to establish a stable, secure and democratic government.
But uneven effort against terrorism is not the only place where Pakistan's cooperation has fallen short. There are still grave concerns about the nature and extent of the "nuclear Walmart" run by A.Q. Khan. To date no agent or investigator of the United States has had any direct access to him. We have only the purported information from Khan passed to us by the Government of Pakistan, a government which in one breath places him under house arrest and in the next celebrates him as a national hero. Meanwhile, we are left to wonder whether Dr. Khan's former associates have been arrested, decided it was time for a career change or merely changed aliases.
The return of Pakistan to democracy is an issue that has slipped in emphasis if not in actual importance. Elections are scheduled for later this year or early next year, but if past is prologue, these elections will be no freer and no fairer than any others. Those candidates who might actually be able to mount a significant political challenge to President Musharraf will either be undercut or barred outright from participating, clearing the field for only a challenge from Islamist candidates and setting before the voters the false choice of Musharraf or militants in control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. The choice is obvious, but not appetizing and clearly one we should be working to change.
Democracy is also under threat in Bangladesh where the caretaker government, apparently with the military's blessing, postponed elections scheduled for last January, declared a state of emergency in response to street demonstrations, and has arrested somewhere between 33,000 and 40,000 people, including some former cabinet officials on charges of corruption. The caretaker government has announced that elections will be held, but only after "revisions" to the voter rolls. No date has been announced for when new voter rolls will be ready or when new elections will be held. Since the caretaker government is mandated by the constitution in the run-up to elections, I am not sure that this qualifies as a coup, per se, but the military's apparent support and the unusually expansive agenda set out by what is nominally a temporary government, should raise serious concerns.
Sri Lanka on the other hand remains a democratic government but is under renewed threat from the LTTE after the 2002 ceasefire broke down resulting in over 4,000 dead last year in renewed conflict. I hope that President Rajapakse's government will move quickly to address the legitimate concerns of Sri Lankan Tamils but the recent addition of a hard-line Buddhist party to the ruling coalition appears to make political compromise less rather than more likely.
But the news isn't all bad in South Asia. In Nepal, the King has re-established the parliament, and the Maoists have agreed to lay down their arms and participate in the up-coming elections for a constituent assembly that will draft a new constitution. Obviously, this could go off the rails at any point, but they are hopeful signs nonetheless.
And then, there is India. As has been remarked many times inside and outside the corridors of power both here and in New Delhi, this is a new era in Indo-U.S. relations. This relationship reached new heights last year as the Congress passed legislation authorizing civilian nuclear cooperation between the United States and India. Negotiations are ongoing and I'm sure that both sides are eager to reach a satisfactory conclusion and we in Congress just as eagerly await those results.
Truthfully this is but the latest development in a relationship that has expanded dramatically in the areas of defense cooperation, space exploration, global HIV/AIDS, and counter terrorism to name a few. But only a little more than two weeks ago we had another sad reminder that India is not just a valued ally in the fight against terror but is all too often the victim. Two bombs placed on the "Friendship Express" train bound for Pakistan killed 68 people, mostly Pakistanis. To their credit, the Governments of India and Pakistan have decided to press on with peace talks and committed to share intelligence regarding the latest attack.
U.S. effort, energy, and money can often make the crucial difference in nations struggling to establish themselves as free and democratic states. In the President's budget request and in the supplemental I'm pleased to see more funding for Afghanistan, where it has long been needed, and more for Bangladesh. I'm less convinced that our money is well spent in Pakistan, and am greatly concerned that we are cutting assistance in Sri Lanka by half over what we provided in 2006. In Nepal, in particular a $9 million cut over 2006 levels strikes me as coming at precisely the time when we should be increasing our assistance to support political reconciliation.
Lastly, while India has clearly benefited from a decade of strong economic growth, I still believe the needs of India's desperately poor remain and a 35% cut in assistance is unwarranted.
The lesson of September 11 is that we cannot afford to allow any state to succumb to any individual or combination of transnational threats. That even if the smallest of states fails, it poses a threat to us and our allies. The challenges in South Asia therefore are enormous but our record thus far has been mixed.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
