What's new

US suspends defence talks with Pakistan: Pentagon

Administration weighs Pakistan options By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer
Mon Nov 5, 2:07 PM ET
President Bush's top national security aides say U.S. financial backing for Pakistan's counterterrorism efforts likely will go uninterrupted despite the administration's unhappiness with President Pervez Musharraf's declaration of a state of emergency.

The White House said Bush would comment Monday on the crisis.

"The best option is for Pakistan to get back on its path to democracy," press secretary Dana Perino told reporters, echoing statements that administration officials had made throughout the weekend.

Discussing the problem Monday while in Ramallah, West Bank, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice exhorted Musharraf to sever his affiliation with the army and restore civilian rule.

"I want to be very clear. We believe that the best path for Pakistan is to quickly return to a constitutional path and then to hold elections," she said, adding that Musharraf must follow through on past promises to "take off his uniform."

And the Pentagon said that it was postponing a meeting scheduled for this week in Islamabad between senior U.S. and Pakistani defense officials.

Eric Edelman, defense undersecretary for policy issues, was planning to travel to Pakistan for the meeting, but "it was thought wise to postpone this meeting until such time that all the parties can focus on the very important issues at hand," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, visiting China, said Monday that the U.S. may take other steps but both he and Rice suggested the administration doesn't want to disrupt its partnership with Pakistan in fighting al-Qaida and other militants — a relationship that dates back to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"We are reviewing all of our assistance programs, although we are mindful not to do anything that would undermine ongoing counterterrorism efforts," Gates said.

At the White House, Perino said Monday: "The government of the United States is deeply disturbed by the proclamation of emergency in Pakistan. We cannot support emergency rule or the extreme measures taken during the emergency. Such actions are not in Pakistan's best interest and damage the progress Pakistan has made on its path to democracy."

She said that Bush has not spoken to Musharraf since the Pakistani president imposed emergency rule on Saturday.

At the State Department, deputy spokesman Tom Casey said a review of "the broad spectrum of assistance that we give to Pakistan" was under way, but declined to comment on whether Musharraf's actions had triggered statutory aid suspensions. He also reiterated that the administration had to consider Pakistan's status as a strong anti-terrorism ally in the review.

"As we look at and review assistance here, we will look at what is both required under law and regulation as well as what would be appropriate to do in terms of U.S. policy," Casey told reporters.

Laws governing the distribution of U.S. foreign aid are clear as they apply to coups d'etat and other unconstitutional steps taken to remove a democratically elected government but are less precise about the imposition of states of emergency and martial law, officials said.

At the same time, Casey noted that U.S.-Pakistani ties would suffer unless Musharraf rescinds the state of emergency.

"It is difficult to see how our relations would remain the same if this step is not, in fact, reversed," he said. "It is our hope that this decision will be reversed in short order."

A day earlier, Rice noted that a significant portion of U.S. aid "is directly related to the counterterrorism mission."

Over the weekend, Musharraf announced he had suspended his country's constitution, ousted the country's top judge and deployed troops to fight what he called rising Islamic extremism.

In Pakistan on Monday, legions of baton-wielding police clashed with lawyers to squash protests against Musharraf, while international pressure mounted against the imposition of emergency powers that have led to more than 1,500 arrests.

The United States has provided about $11 billion to Pakistan since 2001, when Musharraf allied his presidency with Washington after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Rice on Sunday staunchly denied the United States has invested so heavily in Musharraf that its options are now limited.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Print Story: Administration weighs Pakistan options on Yahoo! News
 
Administration is torn over Pakistan By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
51 minutes ago



The crackdown by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf forces the Bush administration to walk a delicate line in dealing with a key ally in the war on terrorism, one armed with nuclear weapons in one of the world's most dangerous neighborhoods. There are no good options.

The U.S. could cut off the billions of dollars of annual support, but that could undermine counterterrorism efforts. Continued support for the Musharraf government would bring ridicule from human-rights advocates and make a mockery of Bush's "freedom agenda."

The administration may have to concede it has little direct influence over Musharraf, some analysts suggest. That could lead to doing little in hopes the crisis will pass, while condemning Musharraf's consolidation of power and arrests of hundreds of activists and political opponents.

Given the Pakistani general's growing unpopularity in his own country, his hold on power may be fragile. He could be vulnerable to the same kind of coup by the Pakistan military that he used to seize power in October 1999.

"We want to be a champion for democracy, we want to be pushing for that. But we also have to recognize that instability or state collapse in Pakistan at this time would be a nightmare for everyone," said Michele Flournoy, a former Pentagon defense strategist and now president of the Center for a New American Security, a defense think tank.

"What we should be doing is trying to get the reasonable parties within Pakistan back into dialogue with each other," she said.

The White House and State Department clearly were struggling for a second day on Monday in weighing options after Musharraf on Saturday suspended the constitution and declared a state of emergency. The dilemma confronting the U.S. was clear from President Bush's on-one-hand, on-the-other-hand response to the crisis.

Calling Musharraf's strong-arm tactics an affront to democracy, Bush declared: "We expect there to be elections as soon as possible and that the president should remove his military uniform." Despite strong U.S. warnings, Musharraf's government appeared set to delay elections that had been scheduled for January.

Still, talking with reporters after a meeting with Turkey's prime minister, Bush noted that Musharraf "has been a strong fighter against extremists and radicals.... And our hope is that he will restore democracy as quickly as possible."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates both said U.S. aid to Pakistan would be scrutinized. And Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., chairwoman of a House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees foreign aid, said on Monday that Congress would "review all relevant economic and military aid" to make sure it was advancing American interests.

But P.J. Crowley, an official at the National Security Council and the Pentagon during the Clinton administration, warned against "an impulse on Capitol Hill to cut back the aid. I think that would be a mistake. If we are going to maintain the leverage we have with Pakistan, the aid can be useful."

"There may be some tweaks that can be made to it," added Crowley, now with the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, about $10 billion in U.S. assistance has gone to Pakistan.

According a breakdown by the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies, close to 60 percent has reimbursed Pakistan for its help in the war on terrorism.

Roughly 15 percent, or close to $1.6 billion, has helped pay for weapons systems and other "security assistance." Another 15 percent consisted of direct payments to the government of Pakistan while the remaining 10 percent covered "development and humanitarian assistance," including relief for the 2005 earthquake.

Frederick Barton, an analyst and Pakistan expert at the center who oversaw the study, said he supported "some internal review of where our $2 billion a year is going."

"This is a chance to broaden our base in Pakistan by saying that the need of the Pakistani people will continue irrespective of this power play by Musharraf," Barton said. He suggested a shift of U.S. assistance away from major weapons systems and the military "into a closer alignment with the people of the country."

"We also need to prepare ourselves for the inevitable — which is that Musharraf will leave, whether it is in 10 minutes or 10 weeks. We should be working under the assumption that he's not a permanent fixture," Barton said.

Rice, touring the Middle East, called Musharraf from her plane on Monday to underscore U.S. opposition to his decision to impose what political rival and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto has described as martial law.

Adding to the situation's delicacy: the unpopularity of the United States in Pakistan. A poll in August by Terror Free Tomorrow, a bipartisan group that seeks to reduce support for international terrorism, found that just 19 percent of Pakistanis surveyed had favorable views of the U.S. — about half the 40 percent who said they had favorable views of longtime enemy India.

"We are just 48 hours into this," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "I think it deserves a thorough review, a comprehensive review, and not something we should rush in terms of any actions that we take."

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Tom Raum has covered international and national affairs for The Associated Press since 1973.



Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Print Story: Administration is torn over Pakistan on Yahoo! News
 
Musharraf declared emergency at the behest of US. Musharraf gets 2 billion dollars per year from US. He takes all the directions from US. He will never lose that money as long as he is in power!

I would love to see the evidence to this as well......2 billion dollars is a lot money to get past the u.s taxpayers.....

Sounds like you are bending reality to fit your own beliefs
 
How do you know he gets $2 billion per month? Other politicians make more money but I doubt Musharraf is greedy for money.

100 million a month so called military aid, which is yearly income for General Musharraf of 1.2 billion.

Red this from the White house conference.
 
How do you know he gets $2 billion per month? Other politicians make more money but I doubt Musharraf is greedy for money.

Good grief. Musharraf doesn't pocket 2 billion in aid from the US per month..Sheesh. That's aid, and it's not 2 billion a year. Aid is something like just over 1.2 billion dollars. Most is military, and the rest id pittance.
 
I would love to see the evidence to this as well......2 billion dollars is a lot money to get past the u.s taxpayers.....

Sounds like you are bending reality to fit your own beliefs


Its really a grain of salt, after all the US has a defence budget of 553 billion dollars and they have already spent billions of dollars on the war, buying a general would just be a bargain.
 
100 million a mounth so called military aid, which is yearly income for General Musharraf of 1.2 billion.

If it was 100 million a month in military aid, how does this relate to Musharraf's salary ? How do you even know Musharraf's salary..You are, imo, one of the most whacked out individuals on this forum :crazy: Perhaps that's why you support PPP?
 
If it was 100 million a month in military aid, how does this relate to Musharraf's salary ? How do you even know Musharraf's salary..You are, imo, one of the most whacked out individuals on this forum :crazy:


I read the quote from the White House conference 100 million every month, and I do know the what the salary of a general is, its 2 million dolars each, I read this up in a book.
 
I read the quote from the White House conference 100 million every month, and I do know the what the salary of a general is, its 2 million dolars each, I read this up in a book.

Salaries of 2 million..right-ee-oh..:rofl:
Even prime ministers only get 300,000. No wonder the whole world wants to be a Pakistani General :cheesy:.
 
Bhutto cant be bought the people came out for when she came back in hunderds of thousands, however, General Musharraf is a traitor.

hundreds of thousands is nothing. Even MMA could muster up that much. Whilst I'll admit she has some popularity, she is I would say, currently not the most popular (as elections and polls have shown). How can she be, after slicing up 10% of every investment that could have fed starving people, or given kids a better education?
 
A Pakistani General is worth Rs 500 million! = $8.268218 million or $8.2 million

Posted on June 8, 2007 by Nita
An online interview with Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha has revealed that Pakistani Generals are worth Rs 500 million each. In this interview, conducted by despardes.com’s Editor-in-Chief Irshad Salim, Dr. Siddiqa tells us how the Pakistani military establishment has systematically looted the country. That they are no more than thieves. No wonder Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha’s book Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy has been banned in Pakistan.

Its not just the book, Musharaff has come down on the media with a heavy hand, which makes one suspect that the media was never really free in the first place. People protested and now Musharaff has decided not to go ahead with the ordinance that would have muzzled the freedom of the electronic media. But I can’t help feeling that this climbdown is an eyewash and that he has come to some sort of agreement with the media…he will give some concessions in return for some sort of self censorship.

After reading Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha’s interview one realises how much the General has to hide. And I must thank one of my readers for directing me to this interview. He lives in the US.

In her book Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha has written about Pakistani military business operations. From her experience in working as a civil servant in Pakistan she found out that the Pakistani army has amassed great wealth and that the military has become “predatory engaging in political and economic predation.”

One way its been done is by amassing land. 10 percent of all land, according to the 1912 Colonization of Land Act, is allotted to the military. On paper this land is meant for operational purposes only, but apparently the land has been misappropriated and used as personal land.

Dr. Siddiqa has accused the Pakistan army of running a complete ’side economy’ which includes not just real estate, but also ‘ businesses done by subsidiaries, organizations and individuals.” According to her, this economy could be around 4% of GDP and their share in private sector assets is about 7-10 percent. In crores this is worth about Rs 200 billion and this is not counting the real estate. This is the largest ownership by any single group.

But why should the Army do this? To keep it financially independent! Being dependent on civilian sources for finances is risky if the Army wants to remain in power. Its a vicious circle. They needed the financial autonomy to stick to power and then the financial motive became a strong reason to stay in power. Dr. Siddiqa says that a full general is worth Rs 500 million (Rs. 50 crore) plus (say £5 million or US$9.8 million).

That was just the gist of her interview. For more details you can read here.

The lady’s background:

Her Brief Bio:
She did her doctorate from King’s College, London in 1996 and has worked on issues varying from military expenditure, defence decision-making, nuclear deterrence, arms procurement, arms production to civil-military relations in South Asia. She is also a Ford Fellow and more recently Pakistan Scholar at t he Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars.
She began her professional career with the Pakistan navy as the Director of Naval Research, making her the first civilian and woman to work at that position in Pakistan’s defence establishment. She writes for various international journals such as: Journal of Asian Affairs, Journal of the European Institute of Asian Studies, Jane’s Defence Weekly and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Her major publication to date is the book Pakistan’s Arms Procurement and Military Buildup, 1979-99: In Search of a Policy (Palgrave Press, 2001).

The commentator who sent me this interview adds:

1· Start a movement to oust the ARMY from political power.
2· Create a method to elect an honest leadership both in PPP, Muslim League, MQM, and other parties.
3· Have proper elections.
4· Control the asset distribution by the ARMY Mafia. A proper regulated system should be devised.
5· Control the Assets of the Fauji Foundation and open the books to proper audit.
6· Perks such as land, plot gifts should be controlled or perhaps banned.
7· Make laws of severe punishment for the Generals to stop them from taking political power and that their prime duty should be Defense ALONE.
8· Start investigations into the lootings by the Army Generals especially the Core Commanders (including the millionaire Core Commander Lahore who has benefited most recently).

A Pakistani General is worth Rs 500 million! « A wide angle view of India
 
^^Thank you for the Indian un(cough)biased perspective.

This line
In this interview, conducted by despardes.com’s Editor-in-Chief Irshad Salim, Dr. Siddiqa tells us how the Pakistani military establishment has systematically looted the country.

Where is the exact quote attributed to Dr. Siddiqui that says this, or is this more "unbiased" opinion from Nita?

I am not denying that the military has vast financial holdings, but to go from there to "corrupt looters" requires a pretty high burden of proof.
 

Back
Top Bottom