Defence budget increased by Rs105b

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I didn't claim it was not a widely practiced worldwide, rather it was the first time in our country and still the rest of the ministries are forced to include their departmental pensions in their budget. Why were other ministries not asked to do so? I guess I've made my point.

Perhaps the GoP wished for a more accurate comparison between the Indian and Pakistani defence budgets, since many commentators, Indian and Pakistani, like to do so.

But I am uncertain as to what your point is exactly.

You admit that defeating terrorism is a national priority, and to do so we need to allocate additional funds to the defence budget - so what is the dispute over exactly, in terms of the current defence budget?

Secondly, I think that with Rs. 400 billion in losses from just 8 PSE's, and a defence budget at approximately 3.2% of the total budget, there is ample room for increasing development funds without jeopardizing the war against terrorism and the national defence against external threats.

 

[sparklingway]

Well that is indeed a good point and you've shown me a new perspective but you can guess what opinion I'll stick with.

The 3.2% is an estimate based on projections based on expected growth over last year's budget projection. Perhaps, rather more probably, we'll see a smaller increase in the budget b/c last year we relied on unreliable external financing to project a smaller deficit and we ended up in murky waters. In order to sustain a steady growth rate without jeopardizing the fiscal deficit, the budget is most likely not going to be growth oriented. A major chunk of course will end in debt financing.

Regardless of this fact, 105 billion seems way too much of an increase as far as I see it. It is indeed impossible to imagine that we'd seek to decrease the burden of defence spending in such precarious times, but I was vouching for a sustained spending rather than an increase in its proportional spending.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sparklingway:

Something to consider in terms of the large defence budget increase - despite the Army's repeated exhortations about the 'GoP taking responsibility for development in the conflict affected areas', it appears that development is being both funded and carried out largely by the Army.

Has the GoP pretty much washed its hands off the conflict areas, and will blame the military if things go south, and take credit for 'defeating terrorism and bringing development' if success is achieved?

In which case the large defence budget increase can be attributed to the GoP handing off its responsibilities to the military.

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

Question- is this 104 billion increase in defence budget inclusive of foreign military aid to pakistan or on the top of it ??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Question- is this 104 billion increase in defence budget inclusive of foreign military aid to pakistan or on the top of it ??

If the official budget documents show foreign aid as part of revenue, then we can assume that the DB is inclusive of US military aid.

However, US military aid is around $1.5 billion annually, but won't just be handed over to Pakistan in a one large lump sum. The total annual amount is made available for use, and is then used for financing equipment purchases, training etc. as seen fit. For example the ten bell helis' being requested.

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

If the official budget documents show foreign aid as part of revenue, then we can assume that the DB is inclusive of US military aid.

Ok so does anybody know, in the past, if the aid is being given to pakistan is being included in the revenue??

US military aid is around $1.5 billion annually, but won't just be handed over to Pakistan in a one large lump sum. The total annual amount is made available for use, and is then used for financing equipment purchases, training etc. as seen fit. For example the ten bell helis' being requested.

I think you got it wrong here ...the to total US aid being given to Pak in an year under KLB is 1.5B, hence entire amount is not military aid, but only a part of it is.
Part of military aid being given is under foreign military sales is used for financing equipment purchases .

 

[sparklingway]

Something to consider in terms of the large defence budget increase - despite the Army's repeated exhortations about the 'GoP taking responsibility for development in the conflict affected areas', it appears that development is being both funded and carried out largely by the Army.

Not to sound somehow cruel or inhumane, but this is what the military always claims but in effect at the end of the quarter, the military accounts office sends the Federal Govt request for remuneration for projects completed. The military completes these projects b/c it also sees that it needs to carry out such activities to promote peace in the region which is indeed a good thing.

The military has completed projects out of its own allocations but I will take the word of the Cabinet secretary who sends this summary of release of funds to the PM. I'm not saying that the military isn't doing anything on its own rather it receives most of the money spent out of its own allocations. I've heard from the approving people, the people who handle these documents and seen one for the IDP camps as well and another one pertaining to the KP PDMA releasing funds to the military for it demanded that the operation could be completed by itself pertaining to security reasons. The military was released the funds spent out of its budgetary allocations for the federal govt understands that in a war, budgetary allocations are already tough to meet.

Its just like when people sympathizing with the military oligarchy try to establish that the military's contribution in disaster management shows that it will go out of the way to help people for which my reply is always that the military is the only institution having the hardware resources to carry out these operations. For example, the NDMA and PDMAs are hopelessly under-resourced. They do not have the helicopters to airlift people out of a disaster zone. Nor do the paramilitary forces have the requisite aviation capabilities. Paramilitary forces across the world carry out relief efforts in the wake of a disaster, neither the Rangers nor the FC has the necessary resources at hand. The military does not have the hardware just because it is manned by far more honest people, but b/c other state bodies never have had the funding to acquire them. I'm not belittling the military's efforts but portraying a realistic image which most people fail to see (or rather try not to see) when portraying grandeur.

Has the GoP pretty much washed its hands off the conflict areas, and will blame the military if things go south, and take credit for 'defeating terrorism and bringing development' if success is achieved?

Is it not a success of the govt and the entire country if we defeat terrorism for besides the military aspect, convincing people that it is our own war took more than half a decade and Musharraf was never able to convince the people and the masses rejected it as an imposed war. The increase in domestic terrorism sure had an impact but the non-negotiable stance adopted by the entire state infrastructure needs to be given credit.

I find it always repulsive when credit is given exclusively to the military. It is a people's victory that requires more than just a military defeat of the terrorists. The military is doing more than necessary and has rendered large sacrifices over the past couple of years but so have the ordinary people. The military is doing more than it is expected of it. Soldiers are laying lives after lives but If the people don't support military operations in SWA, then there is no hope.

Leaving aside the reality of the superordinate-subordinate relationship b/w the military and the executive, I cannot imagine the Federal Govt somehow laying the blame on the military in the event of any hiccups in the WoT. It's been more than just a smooth sailing b/w the two and the Federal Govt has only rendered its approval of all military plans and let the military freely dictate its terms in the war. To me that seems more than just an approval of its historical prowess rather an acceptance that it is necessary in such times.

In which case the large defence budget increase can be attributed to the GoP handing off its responsibilities to the military.

I would not say so.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Question- is this 104 billion increase in defence budget inclusive of foreign military aid to pakistan or on the top of it ??

The foreign military aid has basically 2 parts, one is the CSF, meaning the reimbursements done for the cost of operations, which Pakistan spends from its own defence budget and then gets it back and second part is the weapons & ammo purchase from US through the FMS.

In defence budget, these amounts are never added, as reimbursements is the money which we have spent ourselves, while in FMS we can't buy anything else other then from US companies, which nowadays mostly consist of spares, ammo and helicopters. No big weapon systems have been recently bought or planned for now.

 

[Hammy007]

at one time we will have to eat grass for sure..

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

The foreign military aid has basically 2 parts, one is the CSF, meaning the reimbursements done for the cost of operations, which Pakistan spends from its own defence budget and then gets it back and second part is the weapons & ammo purchase from US through the FMS.

In defence budget, these amounts are never added, as reimbursements is the money which we have spent ourselves, while in FMS we can't buy anything else other then from US companies, which nowadays mostly consist of spares, ammo and helicopters. No big weapon systems have been recently bought or planned for now.

And any idea how much CSF is Pak getting annually?

 

[TaimiKhan]

And any idea how much CSF is Pak getting annually?

Its not a limit fund, its based on actual expenses.

I believe so far the figure is somewhere between 5-6Billion so far total, not annually.