Kerry-Lugar Bill or an attempt to further pressurize Pakistan

[SSGPA1]

This bill is not acceptable in its present form even as FO calls it non binding.

Lets see if Obama, Zaradri and co. can stand the pressure of Pakistan.

 

[TaimiKhan]

President to meet COAS to address concerns: Fauzia

Friday, 09 Oct, 2009


LAHORE: Dispelling serious concerns over some of the provisions in the Kerry-Lugar bill, PPP Spokesperson Fauzia Wahab on Friday made it clear that President Asif Ali Zardari will hold talks with COAS Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani to sort out the reservations.

Fauzia Wahab said the party will work to address the military’s concerns instead of adopting a path of confrontation on the issue as some elements want to create a rift between the armed forces and the ruling party.

‘President Asif Ali Zardari will talk to Army Chief Gen Kayani on the matter,’ she said.

‘President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani believe that some political elements want a confrontation between the army and the PPP over this issue but they will not be allowed to succeed,’ Wahab said.

‘I will talk to the army chief and I do not see any problem speaking to the US about the concerns raised by the army,’ Wahab quoted Zardari as saying.

A meeting of the army’s corps commanders chaired by Kayani on Wednesday expressed serious concern about the conditions in the Kerry-Lugar bill affecting Pakistan’s national interests.

The army’s objections primarily relate to clauses about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme, ending support for cross-border activities by Pakistan-based militant groups and the civilian government’s role in military promotions and appointments.

‘Our opponents will try their best to capitalize on the situation but we will have to act very carefully and wisely. We will have to take the army on board on the aid bill and remove all misunderstandings,’ Wahab quoted Zardari as saying.

A senior PPP leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some sections of the party had expressed displeasure over the army coming out in public with its concerns as this amounted to undermining the civilian government’s authority.

‘After writing a letter to the prime minister on the issue, the corps commanders should not have issued a statement to the media. If the army has reservations on the issue, there are appropriate forums to discuss them,’ the leader said.

The leader added that the PPP-led government has fully backed the army and mustered public and political support for operations against the Taliban in Swat.—Online

 

[BATMAN]

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)

 

[BATMAN]

President to meet COAS to address concerns: Fauzia

Zardari should address the concerns of the nation which is why we take few millions in loan while we are not charging 20-25 billion only for transit facility?
It is no more a question of clauses.... it is matter of explanation why the bill was written like this on the first place and why Zardari party start with defending a foreign bill?
Haqqani should be fired over this......

 

[Student]

In light of the US ambassador's interview aired on express tv i would like to suggest the following points:

1. She should see the broader picture and she should be booted out of Pakistan without further notice

2. Its no business of her to tell us What Pakistan should or should not do with Musharraf

3. Stop telling lies and ducking questions

It is in the best interest of the region that US and NATO leave the region ASAP and stop telling us where you might think that taliban operate out of. US has lost grip over majority of Afganistan and there are simply looking for a scapegoat i.e Pakistan.

The Brave soldieres of Pakistan have spilt enough blood for securing the nation.

 

[The Patriot]

US will never give condition free aid to anyone. We know the Marshall plan where countries like Britain, France and Germany had to accept US conditions. They were reluctant to sacrifice some of their sovereignty but they did for the sack of their recovery. having said that we cannot expect aid from US without conditions. now its for us if we want aid or not. the fact is we have taken aid in past and would like to take it for the sake of our economy. we have been so bad in managing our economy that we rely on loans from IMF and World Bank and aid. and if we say no to aid because of some insulting conditions, shall we restrict our "ghairat" only to this bill or will extend to every other issue like the drones attacks, funding from Friends of Democratic Pakistan, saying no to IMF and WB and stop asking America to reschedule our loans and get us funds from these different institutions. I dont understand where do we stand with regard to America. can our economy stand a chance, given our poor management, corruption and bad governance. i think we need to do some soul searching as one nation and shall not behave like emotional kid in the comity of nations.
( Personally, I will rather prefer to die instead of begging)

 

[SSGPA1]

In light of the US ambassador's interview aired on express tv i would like to suggest the following points:

1. She should see the broader picture and she should be booted out of Pakistan without further notice

2. Its no business of her to tell us What Pakistan should or should not do with Musharraf

3. Stop telling lies and ducking questions

It is in the best interest of the region that US and NATO leave the region ASAP and stop telling us where you might think that taliban operate out of. US has lost grip over majority of Afganistan and there are simply looking for a scapegoat i.e Pakistan.

The Brave soldieres of Pakistan have spilt enough blood for securing the nation.

Can you please post the link for her interview?

 

[MZUBAIR]

Can you please post the link for her interview?

 

[XYON]

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)

It is evident that tactical and strategic input/ opinion from the US Embassy from Islamabad was not solicited by the US Government for preparing this bill. Poor US Ambassador is just venting her frustration and actually giving us a way out of this by saying that the rejection of this bill would be a slap on the face of the US.

 

[kumar_V1.0]

The sovereignty hysteria
By Gul Bukhari
Saturday, 10 Oct, 2009
font-size small font-size largefont-sizeprintemail share
Critics of the Kerry-Lugar bill must answer a humiliating question: the preservation of whose sovereignty are they referring to? Is it of a country that has accepted drone attacks in the tribal areas? –Photo by AFP

The hysterical reaction to the Kerry-Lugar bill by formerly rational TV anchors, analysts and politicians is painful to watch. True, one does not expect any better from those who only oppose and criticise for the sake of doing so, but to hear saner voices in the mad din is distressing.

In Shakespeare’s words,
[They] have no spur
To prick the sides of [their] intent, but only
Vaulting [patriotism] ambition, which o’erleaps itself,
And falls on th’other...

In his soliloquy, Macbeth argued with himself against the murder of King Duncan, who was not only his relative but also a pious and good king. In recognising that he had ‘no spur to prick the sides of his intent, but only vaulting ambition’ he admitted that his only justification for contemplating the murder of his cousin, the king, was his ambition, and he describes it in terms of a rider who jumps too high and as a consequence ‘o’erleaps’ to fall on the other side of the steed.

I cannot help seeing slow-motion images of these rider-critics, once again, in their shining suits of patriotism o’erleaping and falling on th’other (the last time was after the Mumbai carnage). These otherwise reasonable, intelligent and sensible persons all admit to the factual nature of Pakistan’s transgressions in the past, based on which the bill places restrictions upon the country.

None deny Pakistan’s past role in nuclear proliferation; none deny Pakistan’s past misuse of American aid towards aiding and consolidating Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives; none now deny the involvement of Pakistanis in the Mumbai attack; and none deny the presence of the Taliban in south Punjab. Moreover, none disagree that today Pakistan is on a precipice, gazing down into a void due to these very reasons.

Yet an unreasonable emotion, which they probably identify as patriotism, prompts these detractors to aggressively attack every ‘string’ attached to the proposed non-military aid bill that aims to shoot down the very causes they themselves recognise as being at the root of many of Pakistan’s troubles. So hateful are the ‘strings’ to them that they would rather have no aid than have their state be forced to quit fomenting extremism and terrorism. Admirable patriotism!

I ask them to sincerely examine their emotions and try to discern whether it is truly patriotism they feel, or pain, humiliation and anger at a spade being called a spade, and being told to become a proper cudgel. Love for one’s country should not plunge one into blind denial and a fit of tantrums. ‘Yes! These may be valid concerns, but who is the US to tell us so? We would rather eat grass….’ To those who speak these words, it has become an issue of preserving sovereignty.

First, critics of the bill must answer a humiliating question: the preservation of whose sovereignty are they referring to? Is it of the same country whose armed forces were forced to fight the Taliban in Swat because of American threats of on-the-ground forces and aerial attacks, Afghan-occupation style? Or is it of a country that has accepted drone attacks in the tribal areas, launched by foreign forces to take out entrenched Al Qaeda and Taliban elements?

With mixed feelings of pain and relief, I must remind all that had the country in question actually been sovereign, and had the US not successfully arm-twisted Islamabad and GHQ into action this year, we would quite possibly have been the proud citizens of the Islamic Emirate of Pakistan, ruled by the benevolent Emir Mullah Omar today.

Second, how are American attempts to stop nuclear proliferation by a state that demonstrated rogue behaviour in the past a sovereignty issue? The bill is clear in its aims of stopping Pakistan from pursuing self-destruction. Is there anyone who denies that our adventures in Kashmir and Afghanistan have landed us in the fine mess we are in today? Or that the world is a safer place with countries like Iran on the brink of going nuclear?

Sensible patriotism might have entailed insistence on the insertion of clauses of transparency in the processes involved, not throwing tantrums at the principles contained within the bill. The objectives and principles contained in it are actually constructive from the Pakistani people’s point of view. But if a cool-minded analysis of the bill reveals any modalities that might put the national interest at risk, then those ought to be negotiated.

For example, opinion-makers might want to ask our parliament to negotiate provisions in the bill whereby, for example, a transparent legal process within Pakistan would precede any decision on the fate of suspected nuclear proliferators, to safeguard against any perceived threats from unjustified future demands from the US.

Should the US whimsically decide to accuse Pakistan of atrocities carried out in neighbouring countries at some future date, instead of raising spurious objections like those of a PML-N parliamentarian pertaining to the possibility of sudden stoppage of the construction of hospitals from aid funds, a more honest and wise approach would be required.

It would be infinitely more mature for our politicians to be appreciative of the US making aid contingent on a stop to the military’s extra-curricular activities, as well as the state’s refraining from promoting extremism and terrorism. They can then set about proposing safeguards against potential threats to national interests contained within the bill.

Can anyone disagree that much of the extremism in Pakistan today was sponsored by the state for a long time?

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect...ws/pakistan/14-the-sovereignty-hysteria-zj-05

 

[Kasrkin]

As the army has opposed KL bill it will never be passed by GOP. Army still in charge and controls the govt. In Pakistan the Army can not be questioned, controlled or held accountable by the civilians. Pakistani politicians, journalists and even commentators on this forum are afraid to speak against the Army for their own safety( I don't blame them).

That is quite an exaggeration. The army is the single most powerful and respected institution in Pakistan. Indeed no Pakistani politician is stupid enough to disregard their opinion or potential given that they've overthrown civilian governments numerous times and that too with widespread popular support, judicial cover and facilitation from rival politicians. However, because of this people do speak out against the army ALOT. In fact, some of the venom that is displayed against the Pakistan Army in public forums here would never have been tolerated against national institutions in liberal countries. But there is hardly anything in the way of censorship or political retribution, even when the military is in charge. The Army has always stepped down from power the same way they came up: through popular demand. There is no secret police, there is no campaign of torture or intimidation. So your view of the Pakistan Army being a merciless, all powerful and utterly controlling entity is misplaced and based on stereotypical understandings of third-world dictatorships.

The Pakistan Army occasionally has friction with their political masters like these days over the KL bill, but as you'll note that the government has not been overthrown and has openly criticized the army for protesting. There is a limit to what the army can do, there is no way they will consider overthrowing the government even if the bill is passed as it is. It might affect their long term planning, but another coup would be more trouble than its worth for the country, and they know that so they're happy to take the back-seat now.

For example Zardari wants Army to move in Waziristan. But the Army even after 3 months of preparation is reluctant to move in. Why is such professional Army dragging its feet to fight against a band of terrorists.

They can hardly be called a 'band' of terrorists. These are the legendary tribal areas and they've been garrisoned by the worst terrorists on earth. Second, the Pakistan Army for all its professionalism is having to face some serious resource shortages even acknowledged by the US State Department. The amount of money we spend on our war efforts in the WoT is hardly 5% of what our richer allies do in their campaign across the Durrand. And what do they have to show for it that we don't? If its about professionalism then it wouldn't have taken 7 years for US marines to land in Helmand which was largely run by the Taliban (token efforts by British paras and marines not withstanding). The US/NATO are still struggling to hold back the tide of the intensifying Taliban rebellion, let alone anywhere near evicting them from their hideouts.

Given the amount of equipment and money we have presently, I can BET, that had such limited resources been available to the 'professional' US/NATO militaries then they wouldn't even THINK of launching an operation as ambitious as Waziristan. We've shown commitment and willingness to eliminate this last major hideout of terrorists in our country by amassing 3 divisions. But with our fuel supplies precariously low, our workhorse Cobra helicopters having to be cannibalized due to lack of parts (we've barely got one overused squadron anyway), hardly ANY heavy transport choppers to minimize casualties for forces on transit on the ground and NO armored vehicles that can traverse the terrain... it was always going to be tricky. Not to mention a meat grinder for our brave young men. We'll go when we're ready, when we can get the job done. And when we have the reconstruction resources lined up. Then there is the whole issue of refugees.

Your contemptuous dismissal of Pakistan's efforts is typical, as is your tendency to level accusations of 'laziness' or 'unwillingness' even 'complicity'. But we're doing the best we can, much more than is actually appreciated by our pompous and self-serving allies, and we're suffering because of it as well.

I hope that my words might encourage you to consider our point of view too.

 

[Patriot]

even commentators on this forum are afraid to speak against the Army for their own safety( I don't blame them).

Pakistan is a free country.You can check several Pakistanis forums and find a lot of trash against Army.Your opinion of Pakistan Army is built through media prism.We speak about Army here regularly.People criticize Army here all the time and no, ISI have not picked any member yet

 

[insight-out]

I just found this statement by Mr. Mian Mohammad Mansha interesting.

We could bring $1.5 billion a year, equal to US aid in Kerry-Lugar Bill

RAWALPINDI: Mian Mohammad Mansha, Chairman Nishat Group of Companies, has said that he has brought $1 billion to Pakistan from abroad through the private sector and could bring $1.5 billion a year, equal to US aid in Kerry-Lugar Bill.

The chairman of Nishat Group of Companies, which comprises Muslim Commercial Bank, Adamjee Insurance, DG Khan Cement and Nishat Textile, was speaking at Tezi Mandi programme of the Geo News.

Mohammad Mansha said, “We have been talking about American $1.5 billion a year, but no one was speaking about $1 billion, which we brought to Pakistan through private sector.” He said, “You know why the private sector is not doing that as we are just hampering it.” He added that the investment could not come in a month, “we have to improve the markets further.”

more...

 

[Rank]

U know What ye Kbill ayeega tu Zardari ko neend ayege! aur woh jo Hussain haqani hey usko tu yahood parasti ka award milna chahyee damn it PPPP

 

[Omar1984]

Pakistan FM off to U.S. to resolve aid bill controversy
​

ISLAMABAD, Oct. 12 (Xinhua) -- Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi Monday rushed to Washington to remove a controversy over a United States legislation which has approved 1.5 billion U.S. dollars annually but with tough conditions.

Opposition parties, top army commanders and several partners in the ruling coalition have raised objections at the Kerry-Lugar Bill, already approved by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives and is now being sent for President's signature.

The Bill wants ceasing support, including by any elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agency, to extremist and terrorist groups, particularly to any group that has conducted attacks against the U.S. or coalition forces in Afghanistan, or against the territory or people of neighboring countries.

Qureshi said that he will hold in-depth talks with the U.S. legislators and all concerned officials of the U.S. administration and will apprise them of the reservations of Pakistani nation on the bill besides other important regional and international issues.

"Pakistan would never allow the U.S. to get hold of our micro-management," Qureshi told reporters in Islamabad before his departure to the U.S..

The Foreign Minister said during his interaction with the U.S. leadership he observed that Americans have no intention of micro-managing Pakistan's affairs.

"We will have to safeguard our regional, political and economic interests but at the same time we will have to keep in view our relations with the world." he said.

He said the Kerry-Lugar Bill envisages 7.5 billion U.S. dollars of aid to Pakistan in five years at a time when the entire world including Pakistan were faced with economic recession.

He said that the Prime Minster has already contacted the political leadership and has taken them into confidence on the Kerry-Lugar Bill.

He said the political and military leadership have been taken into confidence on Kerry-Lugar Bill adding that he is leaving for the U.S. and has complete confidence of all stakeholders.

The bill says Pakistan will also prevent al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, from operating in the territory of Pakistan, including carrying out cross-border attacks into neighboring countries, closing terrorist camps in the tribal regions, dismantling terrorist bases of operations in other parts of the country and taking action when provided with intelligence about high-level terrorist target.

According to the bill, Pakistan will also extend cooperation to the U.S. in efforts to dismantle supplier networks relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapons-related materials, such as providing relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks.