“The Kerry-Looter Bill”

ABC News' Nick Schifrin reports from Pakistan:I returned to my home in Islamabad after two months in Kabul, and it took only about an hour before I heard complaints about what is known around here as "KLB" – the Kerry-Lugar Bill, the aid package from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee being offered by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Dick Lugar, R-Ind.Or, as one of the opposition leaders has taken to calling it: The Kerry Looter Bill. It is HUGE news here, and it is almost universally negative. While their reaction might seem a bit late – given the bill was first tabled by then-Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., in 2007 — the Pakistanis say they have not had the final language of the bill for more than a couple of weeks. They had been working on the assumption – which seems to have been encouraged by the now embattled Pakistani ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani — that the final version of the bill would be based on the text championed by Biden and then Sen. John Kerry. Instead, what they got was a version much closer to what Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., wanted -a bill saddled with conditions. Vitriol does not quite describe the Pakistani reaction to those conditions. On Urdu-language talk shows, politicians and columnists of all stripes have gone so far as to argue that the Americans should be slapped with the paper the bill is written on. In one of the markets in Islamabad, locals repeat talking points:"The Kerry Lugar bill is a selling out of 180 million people." "America wants to rule Pakistan.""Pakistan should take back its hand of friendship that it has extended toward America. If Pakistan wants friendship, it should look toward China.""Bush came India and struck a nuclear deal. And here, he came and played cricket. America is playing games with us."There is no doubt the U.S. is losing this PR battle. The bill was designed to redefine and restart the US-Pakistan relationship – to replace years of mistrust and doubt here about the U.S., which is widely thought to have used Pakistan for three decades instead of actually helping its people advance. Instead, the bill is – in the words of its critics here — a "humiliation" and an "impingement of our sovereignty." Some of the most angry have even called for the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, to be kicked out.  Once you drill down, the Pakistanis have three main objections: they believe the U.S. is after its nuclear weapons; they believe the U.S. is trying to force the military to fall under civilian control; and they find onerous the specific mentions of Quetta, where the Afghan Taliban are based, and Muridke, where the group that attacked Mumbai, had its headquarters. This blog isn't the place to describe why some of those assumptions are wrong – I'm just saying that's what the perception of the bill is. And that perception, combined with terrible coverage of new private security contractors arriving in Islamabad and exaggerated opinions about a US embassy expansion, has helped drive anti-Americanism to yet another peak.And this is why that matters. A lot:Pakistani public opinion this year turned decidedly against the Taliban. 2009 was the best chance the U.S. had to replace those doubts about American motivations. And if Pakistanis hate or even doubt American policy, it doesn't matter how many White House situation room meetings the National Security Council holds, or if they develop a pie-in-the-sky perfect plan for Pakistan – Pakistanis will refuse to participate in the War on Terror, which they see as created and motivated by America. And that makes the Pakistani Army's desire to go after the Taliban more difficult to sell. And that makes bringing peace to Pakistan and to the Afghan-Pakistan border nearly impossible.
 

-    Nick Schifrin