What's new

General Kayani speaks up against the Kerry Lugar Bill

ISPR's statement on Kerry Lugar bill only represents the view of the Army, Navy is with the Government and Parliament of Pakistan. - Navy Spokesperson Capt. Mobeen

Air Force to give its view, after consulting the Air Chief.

When did ISPR said that Army won't abide the decision of Parliament??? I guess both statements of Navy and ISPR are same with different words.

ANd by the way ISPR is not the Org. of Army only it represents all forces of Pakistan including Army, Navy and Air Force. Inter Services Public Relations

What do you believe that will army contradict Parliament? I dont think so. If you have read the statement of ISPR it clearly states that Kerry-Lugar bill has some restrictions and conditions which are disliked by Army High Command but they said that Govt. should decide according to the will of people and Army will follow it.

KIT Over n Out
 
Binding or not binding, is not the issue. Obviously Pakistan would sign into effect some piece of document that would grant the US authority over the stipulations placed on it.

I think the PM and the President are pulling the wool over our eyes for their $1.5 bn in bribe money. Reject it!

The Associated Press: Pakistan's military rejects US aid bill

By NAHAL TOOSI (AP) – 1 day ago
ISLAMABAD — Pakistan's powerful military rejected U.S. attempts to link billions of dollars in foreign aid to increased monitoring of its anti-terror efforts, complicating American attempts to strike al-Qaida and Taliban fighters on the Afghan border.

Although the U.S.-backed government of President Asif Ali Zardari has the final say on whether to accept the money, the unusual public criticism threatens to force its hand and undermine military cooperation with the Americans just as the Pakistani army prepares for what could be its most important offensive against extremists since the U.S.-led anti-terror campaign began exactly eight years ago.
Any breakdown in intelligence sharing and other types of cooperation would hurt the American fight against a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. U.S. and NATO commanders say the war there cannot be won unless Islamabad does more to tackle extremists on its side of the border.

In Washington, President Barack Obama met with his national security team for a strategy session on Afghanistan after signaling that he was not considering a troop withdrawal. The session came amid new polls showing waning support for the war in the United States.

The military's criticism of the bill came in a brief written statement that said senior commanders, including the army chief, "expressed serious concern regarding clauses impacting on national security."

Among other strings, the bill conditions U.S. aid on whether Pakistan government maintains effective control over the military, including its budgets, the chain of command and top promotions.

Some analysts said the military's statement had little to do with genuine dislike of a bill that stands to help crumbling schools, roads and hospitals. They said the army was sending a message to the Pakistani and U.S. governments about the limits of civilian control in a country that's been subject to military rule for about half of its 62-year history.

"Clearly the government is under direct pressure from the army," said Cyril Almeida, a columnist for Dawn newspaper. "The army's public statement indicates that it is sending a message that says look, we are in charge of security issues."

The military is believed to have increased its cooperation with U.S. forces over the past year, shared intelligence for numbers of U.S. missile strikes on militant targets — most notably the one which killed Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. The U.S. military clearly hopes for more Pakistani cooperation in hunting down other targets as well, including al-Qaida and Afghan Taliban leaders who are less of a priority for the Pakistanis.

Political tension in Islamabad would pose another obstacle to U.S. war goals. The debate comes as the army stepped up preparations for a new offensive in South Waziristan, an operation that would face steep challenges, ranging from harsh terrain to well dug-in militants. An estimated 10,000 well-armed militants, including foreign fighters, are believed to be in the region.

Opposition lawmakers jumped at the opportunity to weaken a president widely viewed as a U.S. puppet, calling on the government to reject the legislation as an unacceptable intrusion into Pakistan's internal affairs. A recent poll by the International Republican Institute found that 80 percent of Pakistanis surveyed said they did not want the country to assist the U.S. in the fight against terrorism.
The aid bill, which Obama is expected to sign, would triple U.S. nonmilitary assistance to Pakistan, providing $1.5 billion a year over the next five years. U.S. officials say the goal is to alleviate widespread poverty, lessening the allure of Islamist extremists and supporting the country's transition to democracy.

Zardari has championed the legislation as a break from past U.S. aid packages, which he says came with more strings. He says the bill is proof that Washington is committed to helping the country long-term.
But to many here, it is sign of growing — and unwanted — U.S. influence. In addition to civilian aid, the legislation authorizes "such sums as are necessary" for counterterrorism assistance — but only on several conditions.

Those include yearly certification that Pakistan is making a sustained commitment to combating terrorist groups, cooperating in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that its security forces are not subverting the country's political or judicial processes. Failure to do those things would mean the aid stops flowing.

The bipartisan bill, sponsored by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Dick Lugar of Indiana, also calls for strict monitoring of how all the funds are spent. Much of past American assistance to Pakistan has fallen into the wrong hands. Between 2002 and 2008, as al-Qaida regrouped in the country after fleeing Afghanistan, only $500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually made it to the Pakistani military, two Pakistani army generals told The Associated Press recently.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly tried to ease Pakistani concerns.

"Since we are stewards of U.S. taxpayer funds, we have to build in certain consultation mechanisms, monitoring mechanisms," Kelly said. "These are in no way intended to impinge on Pakistan's sovereignty."
The Pakistani military's statement referred to the parliament's deliberation on the subject, which it said would allow "the government to develop a national response."

Hours later, lawmakers began a debate over whether to accept the aid. They are empowered only with making a recommendation to Zardari's government.

"Each and every page of the bill is reflective of the insulting attitude towards Pakistan," said opposition leader Ch. Nisar Ali Khan, part of a chorus of politicians and columnists that have criticized it in recent days. "It seeks to safeguard the interests of the United States."
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was more conciliatory, telling parliament the government would look into the concerns of the military, and had not yet agreed to accept the money.

"We have not done anything so far without consensus and we will develop consensus on this, too," he said.

On a trip to Washington, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi played down the military's statement, calling the aid package the "first, very strong signal of a long-term commitment with the people of Pakistan."

But opposition leaders objected to demands that the country dismantle "terrorists bases" in the southwestern city of Quetta — where U.S. officials say Afghan Taliban leaders are based — and the eastern town of Muridke, the home of an Islamist group implicated in attacks on India.

Another potential sore point is language on nuclear proliferation that calls on Pakistan to provide "direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks." That appears to allude to nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who is alleged to have spread nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

The outcry over the bill follows a backlash over U.S. plans to add hundreds more embassy staff in Islamabad.

Almeida and other analysts said that in the end Pakistan was unlikely to reject the aid.

"There'll be a lot of noise, but at the end of the day the bill is about giving Pakistan money, and we need money and we're probably going to take the money," Almeida said. "But we're going to do in a way which suggests that we're taking it under protest."

Associated Press writer Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.

Aid Package From U.S. Jolts Army in Pakistan

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — In an unusual move, the Pakistani Army expressed public anger Wednesday at the terms of a large American aid package, saying it interfered with Pakistan’s national security, a posture that set the military at loggerheads with the American-backed civilian government.

The criticism made in a statement after the monthly meeting of the nation’s top generals embarrassed the government of President Asif Ali Zardari and came as the Obama administration is seeking to persuade the Pakistani Army to broaden its campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

The chief of the Pakistani Army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, was so offended by stipulations in the American legislation that he complained to the American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, when the two men met in Islamabad on Tuesday, according to a senior Pakistani military officer.

The legislation passed by Congress last week gives Pakistan $1.5 billion over the next year for the Zardari government to build roads, schools and other infrastructure, a gesture intended to shore up the weak civilian government and turn around the widespread antipathy toward the United States among Pakistanis.

Instead, the aid package has served to widen the distrust between the military and the civilian government, even though the new aid comes in addition to America’s aid to the Pakistani military, which had totaled more than $10 billion since 2001.

The section of the legislation that has outraged the army says the secretary of state must report to Congress every six months on whether the government is exercising “effective civilian control over the military.”

The secretary must assess the extent to which the civilian government has oversight over the military chain of command, promotion of generals and the military budgets, provisions that even Pakistani politicians have taken strong exception to as meddling in Pakistan’s business.

The legislation also says Pakistan must show progress in ending support for terrorist groups, and dismantle groups operating out of Quetta and Muridke.

The generals were specifically infuriated by mention of Quetta, which the Obama administration says is a base for Taliban who fight American forces in Afghanistan, and of Muridke, which is a well known base for Lashkar-e-Taiba, a militant group formed two decades ago by the Pakistani government to fight India.

The United States and India say Lashkar was behind the attacks in India’s financial capital, Mumbai, last November.

“This is a direct indictment,” a senior military official said in reference to Muridke. The Americans, he said, were threatening the Pakistanis, saying that if the Pakistani military did not behave according to American wishes, then the Americans would penalize them. “Some may say this is typical American arrogance,” said the official who spoke candidly on condition of anonymity.

Anger over what is being interpreted as impudent American demands has been building, fanned by other recent frictions — plans for a bigger American Embassy, the use of an American private security firm to protect American diplomats — in what was supposed to be a new era between the United States and Pakistan under President Obama.

The fury reached a high on Wednesday, even exceeding longtime complaints about American drone attacks against militants in the tribal areas as being an infringement of sovereignty.

In its statement after the generals’ monthly meeting, the army said: “The forum expressed serious concern regarding clauses impacting on national security.” A “formal input” by the military would be sent to Parliament, the army said.

Mr. Zardari held a lengthy meeting with members of his party on Tuesday, many of whom were having difficulty explaining the aid legislation under a barrage of criticism in the press and among the opposition parties.

Afterward, the presidential spokesman called the attacks on the legislation “propaganda” aimed at “undermining” the president’s position.

Part of the military’s anger focused, the senior military official said, on the affront of not being informed by the civilian government about the stipulations that affected the army.

“The security establishment of the country has not been kept in the loop,” he said.

The front-page headline on Wednesday for an article about the meeting between General Kayani and General McChrystal in The News read: “Insult! Army tells U.S. military.”

In a conciliatory address to Parliament on Wednesday evening, the prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, argued the legislation was not binding. He assured Parliament that the government would “never” allow a foreign power to have access to Pakistan’s nuclear assets.

His reference to nuclear capability was apparently to allay anger over a reference in the legislation asking Pakistan to continue to cooperate with the United States in efforts to dismantle networks trying to acquire nuclear weapons-related materials.
 
How can one say to "reject it".

- You know Pakistan's economy
- You've been living off the US's cooperation since the partition. Recently $$ going to Pakistan's crumbled economy.
If Pakistan DENYS that aid; US will MOST LIKELY not cooperate with any relations nor waste time supplying your warbirds =)

I agree with Kayani though. But he should understand the government won't reject it because they are in a state where that money is needed desperately.

EVEN IF the US is using Pakistan (and Pakistan knows it) they are still cooperating for the money.

Another threat: If PAKISTAN doesn't cooperate with the US. They'll do what they did in Iraq =) invade Pakistan. Mushy already admitted this.
 
While our government is desperately trying to convince us that the KLB is not binding on us (in effect they are saying we'll take American money and then betray them - as if they have the guts to do that), the US is singing a different tone and expects to hold us to those terms and conditions.

Kerry-Lugar bill not a bilateral agreement: FO

By Sajjad Malik

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan said on Thursday that the Kerry-Lugar bill was not a bilateral agreement with the US, and Islamabad had the right to reject it – as its clauses were “not binding on Pakistan”.

“The prime minister very clearly said in the National Assembly that the Kerry-Lugar bill is not a bilateral agreement or a bilateral contract ... so its clauses are not binding on Pakistan,” Foreign Office Spokesman Abdul Basit told a weekly briefing.

He said the bill was legislation drafted by the US Congress, and there was always a possibility in the American system that the president could send the document back to the Congress for reconsideration.

Asked about allegations that the Pakistani ambassador in Washington lobbied for some controversial clauses of the bill, he said, “Our embassy in Washington kept Islamabad posted on developments on the Kerry-Lugar bill.” Indian embassy blast, foreigners:

The spokesman strongly condemned a blast outside the Indian embassy in Kabul.

Basit said issues related to “foreigners moving in the capital with guns are very serious, and Pakistan is taking it very seriously”. He said the matter would be taken up with diplomatic corps.

Conditions In Kerry-Lugar Bill Stated Policy Of Pakistan: U.S.

(RTTNews) - The powerful U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Thursday the clauses in the Kerry-Lugar aid Bill to Pakistan were based on the stated policy of that country, amid reports that President Barrack Obama postponed signing the bill in the face of strong objections raised by Pakistan military on the bill.

In an extraordinary statement "Separating Myth from Fact on Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009" on the disputed clauses in the USD 7.5 billion U.S. aid bill to Islamabad, the Senate Committee said the legislation was based on the stated policy of the Pakistan government, its military and major opposition parties and the conditions were the basis of bilateral co-operation between the two allies.

"The conditions ask nothing beyond what Pakistan's own leaders have already promised," the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad said that there was no delay in the signing of the bill, and that President Obama would sign the aid document as per schedule.

Earlier Tuesday, John Kerry, the top American Senator and architect of the newly-negotiated version of the Kerry-Lugar Pakistan aid bill which triples the non-military aid to Islamabad to USD 7.5 billion in the next five years, said that "no conditions" were imposed on Islamabad in lieu of the non-military aid.

Terming it "unfortunate" the characterization of the bicameral legislation in some quarters in ways that are just not accurate, Kerry asserted that there was no conditionality in this legislation (Kerry-Lugar bill) for civilian assistance and economic assistance.

Soon after the bill was passed by the House of Representatives by a voice vote last week, Senator Kerry said this bill reaffirmed the depth of America's long-term commitment to the people and Government of Pakistan.

The bill, initially introduced in the Senate by Joe Biden, the then Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and its ranking member, Senator Dick Lugar, has seen several changes, and is now called Kerry-Lugar bill as it has been re-introduced by Senator Kerry, present Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Lugar.

The bicameral legislation is awaiting President Obama's signature.

I mean what the hell did our genius government think? This is a children's playground? "Not binding but we'll sign it anyway, for laughs".
 
How can one say to "reject it".

- You know Pakistan's economy
- You've been living off the US's cooperation since the partition. Recently $$ going to Pakistan's crumbled economy.
If Pakistan DENYS that aid; US will MOST LIKELY not cooperate with any relations nor waste time supplying your warbirds =)

I agree with Kayani though. But he should understand the government won't reject it because they are in a state where that money is needed desperately.

EVEN IF the US is using Pakistan (and Pakistan knows it) they are still cooperating for the money.

Another threat: If PAKISTAN doesn't cooperate with the US. They'll do what they did in Iraq =) invade Pakistan. Mushy already admitted this.

Thats all the raam kahani that no one in Pakistan believes any more. The US WILL not antagonize Pakistan, Pakistan will not cease its support in the fight against terror wherever mutually beneficial, and the suggestion of a Pakistan invasion is laughable. To put it in short, the US can't dictate terms, Pakistan has a better hand here and needs to play it.

There will be ZERO benefit to the Pakistan economy with this bill. You know $1.5bn is A LOT of money. We can effectively hold a $1 million a day lottery every day and still have 5 times the change. We can produce millionaires in Pakistan EVERYDAY with that kind of money. One would think producing 7500 US$ millionaires would change Pakistan's economy. But there will be no change and all of it is just a bribe money for the leadership and sane minds recognize it as such.
 
Kerry-Lugar Bill challenged in SHC | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

KARACHI - The Kerry-Lugar Bill was challenged in Sindh High Court on Friday through a constitution petition moved by Sohail Hameed Advocate. It was pleaded not to accept the bill as it seemed serious threat for sovereignty and constitution of Pakistan.

While filling the petition, Sohail Hameed Advocate submitted that the US Kerry-Lugar Bill was against the self-respect of the country, he maintained that if the bill is granted to the governement of Pakistan, the constitution of the country will become less-effective and to be disappear soon. The plaintiff further submitted that after adopting the bill, the US constitution would be imposed in the country according to the terms and conditions of the bill.
He made respondent to the federal government, foreign and interior ministries and others in the petition.

He asked for restraining the ‘respondents’ from violating the ideology of Pakistan by accepting the Kerry-Lugar Bill which is more an ‘act’ against the ideology of Pakistan, as well as constitution of Pakistan, and Islam. He pleaded to declare the act a clear violation of the constitution of Pakistan, while the integrity, sovereignty, and security of Pakistan are at potential risk through this bill. The bill should be declared of no legal effect which is mainly to intervene in the affairs of Pakistan.
 
Asim we have already posted it so merg all those threads with it :)
 
The way I see it, Zardari himself asked the US to place these conditions against the Army. Initially when Joe-Biden drafted this bill he didn't have such conditions on it.

Considering Pak’s reservations on KL-Bill: Biden

WASHINGTON (Sami Ibrahim): US Vice President Joe Biden said we are considering Pakistan’s reservations on Kerry-Lugar (KL) Bill.

US Vice President held a meeting with Pakistani ambassador-at-large Raffat Mahmood at his (Raffat Mahmood's) residence Friday.

On this occasion Biden said we are aware of Pakistan’s concerns over KL-Bill and examining them.

He said the bill he introduced in the Senate did not contain such conditions.

It may be recalled that KL-Bill was previously Kerry-Biden Bill prepared by US Senator John Kerry and Senator Joe Biden.

Senator John Kerry and Senator Lugar tabled the altered bill in the US Congress after Joe Biden became Vice President.

... Not to mention after our President visited the US.
 
Asim we have already posted it so merg all those threads with it :)
The other one being about Zaid Hamid's take on it, whereas that has its own merits... I didn't want to belittle this matter of great importance by mixing it up with a famed conspiracy theorist.
 
Thats all the raam kahani that no one in Pakistan believes any more. The US WILL not antagonize Pakistan, Pakistan will not cease its support in the fight against terror wherever mutually beneficial, and the suggestion of a Pakistan invasion is laughable. To put it in short, the US can't dictate terms, Pakistan has a better hand here and needs to play it.
If Pakistan HAS better hands on this why did Kayani "need" to make that statement? if your government can dictate its terms TO the US, why does your president go beg other countries for money to save the economy? And why may i ask, Pakistani invasion is laughable? Instead of giving you 4.7 billion and beating their heads to stop supporting the Terrorists, America could much better take control of Pakistan. Didn't they to Afganistan? Only the case is the Afgan government says it "supports" the US being there. Which is bs because they don't know where to hide their faces. They can't STOP the US so why not support them and get on their good side. What happened in Iraq?

I'm not saying US will antagonize Pakistan in this condiotion but what i'm saying is IF your government STOPS this sucking up and turns their back to the US. Then it will.

geo.tv
i've seen countless articles of ministers and president saying "We need more funds to 'fight terrorism'" BS and expand out economy.

- Yes the US is the boss of you
 
Almeida and other analysts said that in the end Pakistan was unlikely to reject the aid.

"There'll be a lot of noise, but at the end of the day the bill is about giving Pakistan money, and we need money and we're probably going to take the money," Almeida said. "But we're going to do in a way which suggests that we're taking it under protest."

This is all that matters in the end. So the only reasonable path for the dissenters is to not push it too much so that normal people forget about the above and start to be paranoid to such an extent that they reject the aid.
 
If Pakistan HAS better hands on this why did Kayani "need" to make that statement? if your government can dictate its terms TO the US, why does your president go beg other countries for money to save the economy?
You don't get it do you? The President is extremely unpopular, he's a self-serving leader. The money is for HIM, not for Pakistan. He begs for himself.

And why may i ask, Pakistani invasion is laughable? Instead of giving you 4.7 billion and beating their heads to stop supporting the Terrorists, America could much better take control of Pakistan. Didn't they to Afganistan? Only the case is the Afgan government says it "supports" the US being there. Which is bs because they don't know where to hide their faces. They can't STOP the US so why not support them and get on their good side. What happened in Iraq?
It's still laughable. The US economy is in shambles. 10% of their population is unemployed (official stats, real numbers can be higher)

I'm not saying US will antagonize Pakistan in this condiotion but what i'm saying is IF your government STOPS this sucking up and turns their back to the US. Then it will.
Nobody in Pakistan going to antagonize the US either. Just won't sign on this document. You're playing at extremes, theres a lot of in the middle stuff.

i've seen countless articles of ministers and president saying "We need more funds to 'fight terrorism'" BS and expand out economy.

As far as that's true, its also true, the US needs us to fight terrorism and improve our economy.

- Yes the US is the boss of you
Perhaps, but we aren't yearning for the employee of the year award either.
 
This is all that matters in the end. So the only reasonable path for the dissenters is to not push it too much so that normal people forget about the above and start to be paranoid to such an extent that they reject the aid.
We'll be flexible, once the US is too.

Already Joe Biden has given the statement that he never intended to put in those clauses, and were added after it became the Kerry-Lugar bill from the Kerry-Biden bill.

I think people are not realizing that these clauses were not really added by the US, but were insisted upon by Zardari and the amendments would come as soon as Zardari feels the heat from the erupting public sentiment against this bill.

Zardari wants to hold on to his power more than anything else. Already once when he antagonized the Pakistani public they marched with a citizens army onto the capital. He knows how dangerous it is going against a strong public sentiment.

Ever since the Kayani and the generals pointed out the trouble spots with this bill the entire Zardari government is jumping from cover. The Paksitani media is flush with reports against the government's moves.

The next move apparently would be to flash some more money. The US will undoubtedly try to buy out the discerning voices. Lets see how it plays.

US envoy thinks some clauses in Kerry-Lugar Bill ‘a big mistake’

Lahore, Oct. 9 (ANI): US Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne W Patterson, has said many clauses in the Kerry-Lugar Bill with regard to the Pakistan Army “are a big mistake”.

The Daily Times quoted Patterson as saying that the Obama administration had gone the extra mile to ensure that the bill didn’t harm Pakistan’s sovereignty.

She added that the draft of the bill was poorly written and that the US would address the concerns of Pakistani politicians and the military leadership.

Hoping that the leadership of both countries would overcome these concerns through dialogue, Patterson said the bill is Pakistan-friendly and there is nothing wrong with it.

Separately, the Pakistan Army has sent a formal letter to President Asif Ali Zardari, expressing its concerns over certain features of the bill.

According to the sources, the presidency is reviewing these concerns. (ANI)
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom