True, no mentionable details have been discussed -- and agreed -- about the nuclear conundrum of South Asia. The $600 million a year aid package binds Pakistan to stay a satellite for at least five years, with no moral right to criticise any aspect of American foreign policy. Why? because it is asking the US to remain busy in South Asia preventing a war that Pakistanis and Indians cannot avoid by the simple device of not fighting it and it has, in effect, repeated what it did in 1954 and 1981 for the sake of American military aid. That this policy of getting linked up to the US chariot by ignoring domestic public opinion is an old habit of Pakistan's ruling establishment. It bemoans the untrustworthiness of Americans loudly enough. But it responds warmly and with alacrity to any gestures, or orders for that matter as after 9/11, Uncle Sam makes in pursuit of a venture in or around Pakistan. It thinks nothing of undoing what it had laboured hard to achieve for 25 long years.

It now endorses by its hard actions the unipolar world that has emerged. It has no problems with it or America's current -- and already near achieved in ME -- objectives, especially in Asia where the main action is. It has had a long standing and long winded friendship with China. What does it think or propose regarding the various ideas and schemes the Chinese like to promote? It has stayed mum. China definitely wants a multipolar world; it wants to see American role reduced in Asia. Does Islamabad ever do or say a thing that will promote any of these Chinese initiatives? It is happy to remain a US satellite.

It wouldn't matter if Pakistan's people had been like the Brits who share so much with the Americans, including latter's purposes. The establishment of this country has promoted a bogus Islamic hubris and jingoism -- Taliban, the Jihadis and sectarian terrorists -- that alternates with paranoia as well as self pity in pursuit of its stated purpose of making a true but imaginary Islamic republic progress. Having done this disservice to Pakistan, the establishment, especially the Army, now assures Bush that we stand for a moderate and modern Islam --- simply because the US government so desires. The Americans, knowing their Pakistanis, accept the proposition and go on to discuss details of how to achieve this objective by the same establishment, otherwise so obedient. The significance and number of words Bush uttered vis-à

-vis the educational reform of Maddrassas on the Camp David lawns on that June 24 is instructive. If the Americans remain wary of Pakistan and force it to remain in step with them, by keeping it on a short leash of aid, military mainly and some economic, few can blame them.

Anyway another longer term commitment of doing as America tells -- as was the case in 1954, 1972 and 1981 -- will produce the results they did in those phases: intensify the old persisting polarisation over the foreign policy. As in the past this polarisation will again ally itself the Strong Centre-versus-regional autonomy or Islamic or Muslim Nationalism versus human rights polrisations. Pakistan's political instability is going to increase with every single military aid dollar, as was the case earlier. Why? Because the opponents of this foreign policy stance will go on agitating for the federal principle and unfettered (by generals) democracy. The effort to promote stability by strengthening the establishment will be self-defeating.

There is no doubt there are many in our political class who will rejoice on the resumption of US military aid of as much as $1.5 billion over the next five years. Mr. Shaukat Aziz, who was propagating his intent soon to reach a stage where he will not have to borrow, should now, explain why this gift horse (of $ 3 billion) is going to impact on the working of the economy.

Moreover it is necessary to look into the mouth of this (gift) horse. Its mouth is tightly shut; it shows no teeth. One remembers the US had resumed in 1981 its military aid and gave two packages, the second of which was also of $ 600 million per annum. That aid too had two halves: military and economic. But this latter economic aid was not for the economy's development of its productive sectors; it was to be spent on military-related economic (infrastructure near the Afghan border) development. We have the same two halves in the proposed $ 3 billion package that comes to the same $ 600 million a year -- and damn the question of its purchasing power 20 years down the line. One would like to know what is proposed to be done with the $ 300 million per year for the stated economic aid. Could it be that it too is military-related economic development?

Far and away, it is the strangest trait of a military government that finds it necessary to look to America for a solution of the Kashmir problem as well as to predicate Pakistan's security on American help in maintaining a 'proper' (better for Pakistan) balance in power vis-à-vis Indian capabilities. It does not seem odd to Pakistan's elites to go on appealing to right this balance as if the US were a super-world-government dispensing pure justice among various states -- as if it does not have its own national interests or preferences of realpolitik.

Insofar as anyone can see the US wants to cultivate India as a strategic partner -- and its refusal to consider selling F16 aircraft just shows how sensitive Bush is in not annoying the Indians. Washington has, to be sure, shown a partnership with Pakistan that does not weigh heavily on the Indian sensitivities. Some spares and cash is all it proposes giving as a consolation prize -- that too provided the Congress agrees where too the Indians are valued more and quite naturally. The nature of US regard for Pakistan is tactical and Americans know how to "buy" Pakistan's cooperation when needed: a small military aid package, sans major military hardware, will do; Pakistani generals will gratefully accept whatever can be dished out.

These generals cannot conceive of the fact that an independent and free people have to stand on their own two feet and pay for what defence may actually be necessary. Pakistan is the homeland of 15 crore people of a fairly large state. They should undertake missions they can achieve and have the defence force they can pay for its equipment. The state should exist primarily to promote economic development and political interests of its people who should be self-reliant, proud and peaceful. They have to earn respect and esteem of others by their achievements, chiefly cultural.

What is instead happening is wholly irrational: it is admitted on all hands that Kashmir problem has no military solution and yet a wholly unnecessary size of military establishment is being maintained when war is not to be visualised. Its equipment cannot be adequately modernised even if the economy goes totally bankrupt. Kashmir, in any case, requires a political solution, i.e. an amicable settlement that requires friendly cooperation with, and from, India. The economy can neither sustain the burden of such a big and supposedly modern armed forces size simultaneously with catering to economic, social and cultural needs of 15 crore men, women and children.

Bush Administration had pointedly invited the soldier-President to do business it had at hand and not a single civilian Minister was in the entourage. Both Bush and Musharraf have thus made a joint political statement: the socalled Federal Cabinet and Parliament are a non-government; real matters have to be dealt with by the real government: i.e. Gen. Musharraf and his bureaucrats. The presence of Shaukat Aziz is a special case and he is Musharraf's lobbyist for IFIs and American Treasury. The US too has in effect derecognised the socalled Real Democracy which is why the General is now using a new adjective 'sustainable' for his notion of democracy.

The American choice of Musharraf to do business with -- while his being in uniform posed no problem -- underscores the traditional American role in Pakistan: always preferring military dictators to elected governments. If a general caricatures democracy or doctors the polls, that has been OK by Uncle Sam. Latter's influence and money favours and sustains dictators. This underlines the absence of popular power and pressure. So long as the people remain as light weight, docile and dumb driven material only dictatorships, dependent on support of America, will rule Pakistan with or without a democratic façade.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.