The Obama administration plans to spend nearly $50 million on Pakistani media this year to reverse anti-American sentiments and raise awareness of projects aimed at improving quality of life, confirms a Washington insider.

After the Kerry-Lugar Bill debacle, the Obama administration had struggled with the idea of ‘branding’ aid and many within the State department and the USAID had argued that identifying projects may backfire.

“By announcing that a school was built and is being maintained – partly because of the aid received from America – you can alienate people,” said someone who had proposed not ‘branding’ the aid.

The US Special Representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke believes that a substantial amount of monies spent on media- especially private TV channels will reduce tension and may even bring Pakistan-US relations back on the right path.

Senator John Kerry, the main architect of Kerry-Lugar bill also supports the idea of claiming credit for all “the good work being done to improve infrastructure, energy and education,” said a source in Senator’s office.

Reuters today reported that the Obama administration has sent lawmakers a plan for funding water, energy and other projects. Report said the US intends to spend $1.45 billion of earmarked for the Kerry-Lugar bill in fiscal 2010.

The trust deficit had surged after a well intended aid package focused to uplift Pakistan’s civilian society was trashed by a section of Pakistani media. Interviews with diplomatic sources in Washington, D.C. and media coverage of the KLB debacle had demonstrated growing frustration of the Obama administration.

Although American officials publicly praise military operation in South Waziristan, in private they sing a different tune; their assessment of ”alignment” is rather pessimistic. Stories leaked to media consistently allege that al-Qaeda leadership is still enjoying safe haven in Pakistan.

Pakistan-U.S. relations have not been this tenuous before, and the Obama administration is frustrated with the outcome of the Kerry-Lugar bill. “No one had anticipated such negativity,” said an American official who did not want to be identified. “We thought Pakistanis [would] celebrate the passage of this bill. This is what we were told by representatives of Pakistani government.”

Pakistani government representatives from President Zardari to Foreign Minister Qureshi and Ambassador Hussain Haqqani further down the chain had assured the Americans that Pakistanis would be jubilant; KLB was suppose to heal all wounds, rectify all wrongs and erase memories of the past from the consciousness of the masses.

I remember when President Obama announced the Senate had passed Kerry-Lugar bill at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in September. Attendees cheered so loud we could hear the thunderous applause from outside.

Later that same day, Richard Holbrooke told Pakistani journalists at the Roosevelt Hotel’s media center that the House will approve the bill within a week. A Pakistani anchor who was visiting with President Zardari screamed “Insha Allah” so loudly it was embarrassing. She acted like a bagger waiting for alms.

The Kerry-Lugar Bill’s failure has been the Obama administration’s biggest setback thus far; its development has been very similar to what happened in Iraq.

But the Obama administration has shared their plan to sponsor high impact projects and communicate the value of these projects using local media.

Voice of America, a radio and TV platform that speaks for the government of the US already has a tie-up with Geo TV and now they have aligned with Express TV as well.

The Obama administration plans to help Pakistan’s democratic government meet budget shortfalls and deliver services to a population increasingly angry about economic and security troubles. As the funding builds the capacity of the government to provide basic services, the US sponsored Pakistani media will raise awareness and a build a brand for America, our sources have confirmed.

Do you wonder why have the Pakistani pundits stopped complaining about imperialist tyranny and exposing the onerous conditions of Kerry-Lugar Bill? Why all of a sudden KLB is a non-issue? I was curious and I spend last several days in Washington DC trying to understand how Obama administration managed the PR fiasco.

Conversations with several insiders and subject matter experts point to a set of meetings on October 19^th in Islamabad.  General David Petraeus  and US Senator John Kerry reached Islamabad on Sunday (October 18^th). It was reported in local media that the meetings were about Waziristan operations but in reality talks with top Pakistani General were limited to the $7.5 billion dollar aid package. “They wanted to understand how this aid package violates Pakistan’s sovereignty. And, they wanted to hear it from the horses mouth,” said a diplomatic source.

Gen. Patreause and Sen. Kerry were sent to Pakistan after US President Barack Obama signed a record 7.5 billion dollar package tripling non-military aid to the nuclear-armed Muslim nation to boost its campaign against a virulent Islamist insurgency. Although the Zaradari government defended the package, Pakistan’s powerful military sparked a domestic showdown, expressing grave reservations about conditions that hinge some of the funds on efforts to battle Islamist extremism. The bill prevents the funding from being used for nuclear proliferation, to support militants or to attack neighboring countries — namely India — and calls for a cut-off in aid if Pakistan fails to crack down on extremists.

United States Central Command chief Gen David Petraeus and Chairman Senate Foreign Affairs committee Senator John Kerry on Monday October 19^th  held separate meetings with the Pakistan Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashraf Kayani and the outcome of those meetings were an immediate yanking of the anti-KLB campaign from Pakistani private TV channels. When Central Command chief Gen David Petraeus went to the GHQ he categorically told Gen Kayani to halt anti-KLB campaign. “Gen. Kayani was told in absolutely clear terms that the Obama administration will not tolerate another Honduras,” said a source very close to this conversation. 

It is interesting that three of my sources mentioned Honduras while talking about the possible outcome of anti-KLB campaign in Pakistan.

On June 28th Honduran soldiers roused democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya from his bed at gunpoint and flew him to Costa Rica. The coup d’etat was the first in Central America in over a quarter century. The coup, led by the Honduran Gen. Romeo Vasquez, was condemned by the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, the Organization of American States and all of Honduras’ immediate national neighbors.

The Obama administration initially did not legally classify Zelaya’s ouster as a coup, which would automatically trigger a suspension of aid. However the administration subsequently suspended military cooperation with the country. Honduran controversy has been extremely embarrassing for the Obama administration which had come to power on the rhetoric that America should seize supporting tyrants and military dictators.

In Pakistan, Zardari administration was portrayed by the media as too deferential to the United States. Pakistani journalists who unconditionally support their Army started the campaign against KLB and coalesced anti-Western politicians, and Muslim fundamentalists — implausibly claiming that Pakistan’s sovereignty was undermined and the country could end up as a U.S. neo-colony. Some of it is untrue!

To begin with, Pakistan has been an American neo-colony for last six decades and most of that time it was under a military dictorship. And, most importantly Pakistan has been an American satellite state because of it’s army. Pakistan’s military operates on the U.S. financial and technological assistance and it will receive even more support in the near future as it targets Taliban strongholds. Therefore conditions placed by the U.S. Congress on $7.5 billion in economic aid to Pakistan over the next five years should not have been of major consequence to Pakistani generals.

Sen. Kerry brought the carrot while Gen. Patreus had the stick.  Gen. Kayani was assured that his military will get monies and equipment that he has asked for but if he pulled a fast one, the Obama administration would at once severe its ties with Pakistan army. 

Sen. Kerry’s meeting was held earlier in the day and Gen. Patreaus arrived at the GHQ in the afternoon. General Kayani counseled his peers and advisors and by the end of October 19^th and it was decided that Kerry-Lugar Bill will not be publicly condemned. Five Pakistani journalists were contacted the very same night and told not beat the dead horse.

It is undoubtedly true that Pakistani government is too deferential to the Americans. Not that I condone it but this is not new.  Bone of contention here was the ‘non-military’ aid. This aid package was historic because it earmarked monies for health, education, infrastructure and civil society. Pakistan army felt left-out.  Although Pakistan army has backed out of KLB but democratic government is still hanging on the balance. NRO, food security, energy crisis all loom over Zardari’s head.

Pakistani media is packed with stories of corruption – same TV anchors who had become Hugo Chavez of Pakistan on army’s behest opposing Kerry-Lugar bill have now launched vociferous campaign against Zaradri government exposing corruption of ruling politicians. Not a single anchor has ever asked what happened to corrupt Generals. Why are corrupt army officials beyond criticism?

From trafficking heroin to grabbing precious land; from taking kick-back on purchase of equipment (sub-marines included) Pakistan army has looted everything we have ever had. Why then, I wonder, Pakistanis only discuss civilian corruption? Managing PR fiasco was easy for the Obama administration. They had to remind the source of opposition of an old proverb: you can’t bite the hand that feeds you. Pakistani Generals understood and complied.

The trust deficit has surged after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s three day tour of Pakistan, the response to which was lukewarm at best. Interviews with diplomatic sources in Washington, D.C. and media coverage of Clinton’s visit demonstrate growing frustration with the Obama administration, which may result in a reassessment of its Pakistani interlocutor.

Although American officials publicly praise military operation in South Waziristan, in private they sing a different tune; their assessment of ”alignment” is rather pessimistic. Stories leaked to media consistently allege that al-Qaeda leadership is still enjoying safe haven in Pakistan.

American TV networks looped a statement by Secretary Clinton’s over and over, which almost accused Pakistan’s government of providing this protection to al-Qaeda leadership.”Al-Qaeda has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002….I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to,” Mrs. Clinton told a gathering of Pakistani newspaper editors. This statement reflects the best possible opinion of Pakistan available in Washington, D.C.; other government sources and media influencers confidently contend that the Pakistani establishment is protecting al-Qaeda.

Clinton’s statement may have been a justified expression of frustration with an ally that has not delivered adequate results. But Pakistanis are equally disappointed with the United States and for the first time in six decades are demanding accountability.

In a very condescending act of “tough love diplomacy,” the White House backed the Secretary Clinton’s blunt statement, questioning Pakistan’s willingness to hunt down al-Qaeda terrorists even as it moves against other extremist groups in its tribal areas.

When asked if Secretary Clinton’s remarks were ”appropriate,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said today: “Obviously the United States has great concern about extremists in Pakistan. And we will continue to — continue to discuss with them what can be done. And those remarks were appropriate.”

A section of the American media is commending Secretary Clinton for taking the gloves off and delivering a no-holds-barred message to Pakistan that it must step up its efforts to apprehend al-Qaeda terrorists and demonstrate a real commitment to democracy. Those who support her directness argue that this gives Pakistan’s leaders a much-needed dose of reality.

Pakistan-U.S. relations have not been this tenuous before, and the Obama administration is frustrated with the outcome of the Kerry-Lugar bill. “No one had anticipated such negativity,” said an American official who did not want to be identified. “We thought Pakistanis [would] celebrate the passage of this bill. This is what we were told by representatives of Pakistani government.”

Pakistani government representatives from President Zardari to Foreign Minister Qureshi and Ambassador Hussain Haqqani further down the chain assured Americans that Pakistanis would be jubilant; KLB was suppose to heal all wounds, rectify all wrongs and erase memories of the past from the consciousness of the masses.

I remember when President Obama announced the Senate had passed Kerry-Lugar bill at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in September. Attendees cheered so loud we could hear the thunderous applause from outside.

Later that same day, Richard Holbrooke told Pakistani journalists at the Roosevelt Hotel’s media center that the House will approve the bill within a week. A Pakistani anchor who was visiting with President Zardari screamed “Insha Allah” so loudly it was embarrassing. She acted like a bagger waiting for alms.

But as we have subsequently learned, Pakistanis are inherently anti-imperialist and if the Pakistani army can find a leader like Chavez, everything could change overnight.

The Kerry-Lugar Bill’s failure has been the Obama administration’s biggest setback thus far; its development has been very similar to what happened in Iraq.

In 2003 Americans were expecting roses as they walked victoriously into Baghdad. They thought the Iraqis would welcome freedom from the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein. Bush’s administration did not anticipate the scale and speed of hostility so soon after the fall of Saddam’s regime.

During her trip, Secretary Clinton repeatedly said the U.S. wants to partner with Pakistan on more than just the military front, but qualified that statement by saying the government in Islamabad will have to be America’s partner in tracking down and capturing the terrorists who masterminded the September 11 attacks, among so many others throughout the world.

Clinton herself defended the bluntness of her remarks in an interview Friday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” saying, “Trust is a two-way street. There is trust deficit.”

She is absolutely right. Americans will not so easily believe Zaradari, Qureshi and Haqqani’s words in the future.

American analysts are asking President Obama to drop the “democracy” mantra and work directly with Pakistan’s army. Obama is also being asked to provide economic support and help strengthen Pakistan’s civil institutions simultaneously conveying an inflexible and clear message that there are no free lunches.

Pakistanis have options too: They can storm, form, norm and perform. After venting frustration over KLB and drone attacks they must normalize and start delivering what America wants.

Or they can find a left-leaning leader within Pakistan’s army and bring about peaceful and secular revolution without foreign aid.

The third and easiest option, to maintain the status-quo, letting Mullahs and extremists take over our lives, is NOT an option.

All along I have argued that an incompetent, corrupt democracy is better than a well disciplined dictatorship and the current debate on Kerry-Lugar bill just proves my point. Never in Pakistan’s history have we debated aid packages, foreign policy and our nation’s subservience to the super power like we do today. I want to commend politicians, journalists and the army generals for chiming in and making this debate vibrant.

I don’t for a minute question the democratic process of debate; what bothers me is the subtext.

I will not tell you that you should read S.1707 in entirety before making up your mind. But if you want to please click here to read Enhanced Partner with Pakistan Act 2009. I am sure you already know but in a nut-shell S. 1707 authorized $1.5 billion annually in non-military assistance to Pakistan from Fiscal Year 2010 through 2014. The bill also authorized “such sums” in annual military training and education, as well as financing funds for the same period. It is controversial because the bill is conditioned on a certification by the Secretary of State, under the direction of the President, that Pakistan is cooperating with the U.S. on certain nonproliferation objectives, in combating terrorism, and that Pakistan’s security forces are not materially interfering in its internal politics. This limitation would be subject to a national security interest waiver. The bill states that certain direct cash security-related assistance and non-assistance payments (reimbursements from the Defense Department) may only be provided or made to civilian authorities of a civilian government of Pakistan, but this limitation is also subject to a national interest waiver.

A point of contention has been a clause that requires transparency and accountability, including semi-annual monitoring reports on assistance provided under the bill, GAO oversight, and audits of assistance by the Inspector General of USAID and the Department of State.

Pakistan has received numerous aid packages in recent past (since 9/11) but this bill is symbolically different; instead of money flowing to Pakistan’s army it goes to civilian institutions. And, that is the major bone of contention.

But the opposition to this aid package has been simmering. As early as April of this year

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Gillani had done something historic by categorically declining to accept US aid with conditions that are not in Pakistan’s national interest.

And, the American position has been very clear as well; when President Barack Obama appealed to the Congress after taking office to pass the Kerry-Lugar bill he also warned that there will be no ‘blank’ checks for Pakistan. But he wasn’t sure what restrictions will be proposed by the House legislation. And, neither was Pakistan. And. now that the Kerry-Lugar bill has become an act and awaits President Obama’s signature Pakistan’s media is up in arms denouncing it as the worst aid package ever.

I am told that “we have done so much for the US and we deserve better.” I would agree- Pakistan has been an ally not only since 9/11 but our commitment goes back five decades when our leadership decided to side with capitalism instead of socialism. We have delivered not only terrorists who wanted to harm the US but also defeated Soviet Union in 1980s and opened the back door diplomacy channels with China in 1960s and 70s.

And, we have suffered consequences as well. If we are to speak with a sense of entitlement, should we not seek reparation instead of aid? If we are ready to accept aid, why should we resist audit and controls? Why is it a problem if America wants to engage with Pakistan’s civil society instead of Pakistan army?

There are several questions that need answers and our media pundits seem to be ignoring them and constructing public opinion out of thin air. A show in Pakistan’s leading TV channel showed people from all walks of life from several different cities; everyone opposed the bill. They did not show a single dissenting opinion. Is that fair and accurate reporting?

Here is part of an interview I recorded last week with Prof. Noam Chomsky on the Kerry Lugar bill. He says Pakistan should decide how to use it. And, the aid package should be viewed in the larger perspective of America’s regional interest. He also points out that $1.5 billion is not that large of an amount when you realize that the US spends that much annually on its Embassy in Iraq.