India caucus behind tough terms in Pak aid bill

[Mirage2000]

India caucus behind tough terms in Pak aid bill​

By Our Correspondent
Saturday, 17 Oct, 2009

Shah Mahmood Qureshi accompanied by John Kerry and Howard Berman make a statement to reporters after their meeting in Washington.—Photo by AP


WASHINGTON: The 152-member Indian Congressional caucus, which includes a number of influential Democratic and Republican lawmakers, played a key role in inserting strict conditions and an offending language in the aid to Pakistan bill, says the influential Wall Street Journal newspaper.

Although unusually tough on pro-Indian US lawmakers, the WSJ editorial is not the only media piece that seeks to blame someone for turning a goodwill gesture — a $7.5 aid package aimed at deepening friendship with Pakistan — into a public relations disaster.

The prestigious ‘Foreign Policy’ magazine blames all: the bill’s sponsors, the Obama administration and the Pakistani government.

‘Richard Holbrooke, the administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, should have seen this one coming,’ wrote a Washington Post columnist.

‘Pakistanis might be forgiven for wondering whether, with friends like these in Washington, who needs enemies?’ wrote Simon Tisdall, former US editor for Britain’s Guardian newspaper.

He noted that Congressman Howard Berman’s comments that they were reluctant to send US dollars ‘down a *** hole’ were ‘condemned as insulting and colonialist in Pakistan’.

Mr Berman chairs the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and is one of the co-authors of the final bill.

‘By linking the cash to tighter civilian control of Pakistan’s military, Washington was trying, clumsily, to strengthen Asif Ali Zardari’s government. But it achieved the exact opposite,’ Mr Tisdall noted.

‘Pakistan is already so destabilised by US actions since 9/11 that it cannot be left to fend for itself. In such tortuous logic is found the death of empires,’ he warned.

The WSJ explained that the original Senate draft did not have the conditions that stirred protests across Pakistan. They were inserted in the House bill and Congressman Berman demanded that they stay in the final bill too.

‘The California Democrat was backed by Gary Ackerman, Jane Harman and the 152-strong India caucus in the House, who wanted to send Pakistan their own message. None of the contentious language was in the Senate version, and the administration and these columns warned Congress to keep it out,’ WSJ wrote.

The newspaper noted that tripling US aid to $7.5 billion over five years ‘would have been an easy diplomatic win’, if House Democrats hadn’t insisted on sticking ‘a gratuitous thumb in the eye of Pakistani national pride’ by tying the aid to specific benchmarks.

‘Now Pakistan is angry just when we need influence there. So much for smart power!’

Commenting on the adverse reaction to the bill in Pakistan, WSJ noted: ‘For good reason, as subsequent events show. Pakistan’s military, media and opposition parties have seized on the House language to attack America’s supposed designs on the country. The government of President Asif Zardari, which backed the aid and wants closer ties with the US, finds itself on the back foot. Recent gains toward strengthening civilian rule and fighting the Taliban are in jeopardy.’
DAWN.COM | World | India caucus behind tough terms in Pak aid bill

 

[IceCold]

India can do nothing if we didn't level the grounds for them and HH is doing just the same and ironically he has the audacity to sue "TheNation".

 

[Renegade]

Guess the Indian lobby in Washington is getting more influential by the day, either that or Pakistans credibility has taken a major beating. Its more like a combination of both the factors complementing each other.

What surprises me more is that the Americans have dismissed all the concerns raised by the Pakistan Army and the PA has taken it quetly after that, given that the Kerry-Luger Bill has already been signed into a law. Guess the dollars where more important than making more noise.

 

[AliFarooq]

^^^
You mean to say Afghanistan, as for the drones pakistan should have them in an year or two.

btw can some 1 post the terms in details.

 

[Ruag]

Can someone provide a direct link to the original WSJ article?

 

[Hellfire]

Thanks for letting us know. You should reject everything and should say bye bye to usa from your land.

they should have done that long back ... but unfortunately, the politicians of South Asia be it Indian or Pakistani are a breed apart .... experts in shooting themselves in head and along with it taking the nation for a ride ...

now US has a large Indian and Pakistani population .... so obv they too are getting in on the act .... we should welcome them

 

[PostColonial]

Its not that Pakistan won't refuse US aid. Fact is that Pakistan cannot refuse US aid, since the alternative is hostile relations with uncle.

 

[sathruvinasakh]

One can understand the calibre of Indian lobby with a simple measure.Obama inviting Indian PM for his first state Dinner.

 

[Developereo]

I am truly at a loss for words.

Why does this come as a surprise? Are Pakistanis living in a cave that they do not know the growing influence of the Indian lobby in Washington? How do they think India managed to get the nuclear deal and the recent military hardware offers? Have they missed the relentless parroting by American media of every little anti-Pakistan trash published in Indian media?

It is not because the Indians are smart or overly resourceful, but the fact that the entrenched and enormously powerful Zionist and neocon lobbies' agendas favor India at this point. There is a confluence of interests between the West and India to counter China's rise and, in that bigger picture, Pakistan is only a minor impediment -- to be neutralized early. It is unfortunate that China hasn't engaged fully in this battle to help shore up Pakistan against the US/Indian alliance.

 

[Ruag]

OK... so India Caucus was the main driver behind the strict terms of this bill.

But the funny part is that the Pakistani government was so desperate for US financial aid that it still went ahead and did not object those terms.

To be frank, whether India Caucus is responsible or not, those terms are actually good for Pakistan because they would make the Pakistani government more accountable and responsible and would also check the rampant corruption. However, it is a breach of Pakistan's sovereignty... no doubt.

 

[Panditji]

What I am not understanding is why is the common Pakistani getting his pants in a bunch over this... Last 10 years, the US has spent ~$10b in that country, and neither the country has enough military hardware to show for it, nor civilian infrastructure.. The entire money seems to be siphoned off by the rulers of the day to Swiss accounts. And if the US steps in and demands that the money be spent on things that matter to the common man and not on the whims and fancy of the high and mighty, the common man should rejoice.

But seldom is reason applied in the melee there, for sure!

 

[Developereo]

OK... so India Caucus was the main driver behind the strict terms of this bill.

But the funny part is that the Pakistani government was so desperate for US financial aid that it still went ahead and did not object those terms.

To be frank, whether India Caucus is responsible or not, those terms are actually good for Pakistan because they would make the Pakistani government more accountable and responsible and would also check the rampant corruption. However, it is a breach of Pakistan's sovereignty... no doubt.

Most Pakistanis don't object to the auditing/oversight clauses. We know our politicians all too well and welcome anything that keeps their paws off the money.

The objection is to clauses that prohibit Pakistan to engage in activities detrimental to "neighboring countries". We all know which neighboring country is being referred to. (Hint: it ain't Afghanistan.)

 

[Ruag]

Most Pakistanis don't object to the auditing/oversight clauses. We know our politicians all too well and welcome anything that keeps their paws off the money.

The objection is to clauses that prohibit Pakistan to engage in activities detrimental to "neighboring countries". We all know which neighboring country is being referred to. (Hint: it ain't Afghanistan.)

Well... so you are suggesting that Pakistan should engage in activities detrimental to "neighboring countries" and thus fight a potential nuclear war?

Wow!

 

[Developereo]

Well... so you are suggesting that Pakistan should engage in activities detrimental to "neighboring countries" and thus fight a potential nuclear war?

Wow!

The point is that America has no business policing Pakistan/India relations.

I thought India was big on solving everything bilaterally and keeping third parties out...

 

[PostColonial]

The point is that America has no business policing Pakistan/India relations.

I thought India was big on solving everything bilaterally and keeping third parties out...

You are either ignorant or doing some word-play. India has always sought to draw global attention towards Pakistan's use of Islamist militants.