Pakistan can no longer sustain cost of war, says expert

[A.Rafay]

ISLAMABAD:
Pakistan’s economy can no longer sustain the cost of war as the money so far disbursed by the US to compensate the damages the country has suffered while fighting the war on terror is only 14% of the total losses, says a leading economist.
Dr Ashfaque Hasan Khan, Dean of NUST Business School and former member of former military ruler Pervez Musharraf’s core economic team, said that despite enormous sacrifices, the international community neither recognises nor appreciates the country’s efforts.
He was addressing the audience of the 14th International American Studies Conference, jointly organised by the US Embassy and Quaid-e-Azam University, on Wednesday.
According to figures published in the economic survey of Pakistan, the war on terrorism has caused direct and indirect losses worth $70 billion, while the US has disbursed only $9.97 billion under the Coalition Support Fund, he said.
He also held the country’s leadership responsible for the world’s apathy towards Pakistan’s problems rooted in the war on terrorism. He said the president, prime minister and finance ministry seldom highlight these sufferings with the international community.
Contrary to the US claims of giving huge assistance to Islamabad, the country has received only $4.8 billion in cash assistance from Washington, which comes up to roughly $437 million per annum, said Khan during his presentation, which was based on figures compiled by the finance ministry. He said in total the US has given less than $15 billion in the last 11 years.
He, however, said the CSF reimbursements did matter for the country as the money would relieve pressures on foreign currency reserves. “Had the last tranche of $1.2 billion, released in July, not come timely, the rupee would have depreciated to Rs100 against a dollar,” he said. The disbursement provided a two-month relief to the government.
Khan further said the country has reached a point where it can no longer bear the cost of war, which has adversely affected investment and privatisation, stressed the fiscal position and impacted exports.
“Pakistan needs the US for multiple reasons but it does not need cash assistance,” he said, while suggesting the US give market access to the country.
Over the last 11 years, the role of the US in Pakistan’s development is on a decline, he said. Citing official figures, he said Pakistan’s exports to the US in terms of their share in the total exports have declined by a tenth. In 2001-02 the exports to the US were 24.4% of the total exports, and have come down to 14.7% in 2011-12.

Pakistan can no longer sustain cost of war, says expert – The Express Tribune

 

[karan.1970]

Looks like ground being laid to demand/ask/request more money and material from the new USA govt

 

[Backbencher]

Saaf saaf bolo na ; that u want more $$$$

 

[graphican]

Looks like ground being laid to demand/ask/request more money and material from the new USA govt

Actually to say good bye to this American Madness and mindless but wishful expansion plans which everybody in Pakistan finds as dark and deep brown bull $hit!

tumko idea to ho gea hoga how tired we are of it

 

[VCheng]

"Please, sir, I want some more." - Oliver Twist.

 

[Avatar]

"Experts" have been saying this since like, forever. US says Pakistan isn't really doing its thing and also limiting US efforts. Pakistan says the opposite of whatever US says. In all this, only Afghanistan suffers and Pakistan's internal situation deteriorates.
US will some day leave Afghanistan and then Pakistan will have to deal with Talibs alone. So better to clean up the mess when the odds of success are higher.

 

[Sher Malang]

This time before hearing 'do more, do more' Pakistan took a prior step to say 'pay more, pay more'! the more money Pakistan takes for this WOT the more it involve it self in which indirectly costs the poor people of Pakistan.

 

[Iggy]

Actually to say good bye to this American Madness and mindless but wishful expansion plans which everybody in Pakistan finds as dark and deep brown bull $hit!

tumko idea to ho gea hoga how tired we are of it

What are other options you have?? You are part of a mess called War on Terror and you cannot win it alone..

 

[Norboo]

"Please, sir, I want some more." - Oliver Twist.

The aid relationship between the United States and Pakistan is badly out of balance. Heavily weighted toward military aid over economic assistance, it has strengthened the hand of Pakistan’s security establishment at the expense of the civilian government. Both countries have reason to be disappointed that so much U.S. aid—nearly $19 billion since 2002—has achieved so little. Rather than continue to purchase Pakistan’s grudging cooperation on counterterrorism, Washington and Islamabad would both be better served by a renewed emphasis on civilian and development assistance.


Vital Statistics

> Pakistan has been heavily dependent on foreign aid ever since independence in 1947. From 1960 to 2002, the country received $73.1 billion in overseas development assistance.

> The United States is Pakistan’s largest single bilateral donor.

> From 2002 to 2010, the United States gave Pakistan almost $19 billion—an average of more than $2 billion per year—primarily for counter terrorism operations.

> The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, also known as Kerry-Lugar-Berman, commits the United States to provide $7.5 billion in non-military aid to Pakistan over a five-year period.

And what has Pakistan got to show for all this aid? Some Pakistanis contend that $70 billion has been spent by Pakistan in the War Against Terror since 2002! This is complete hogwash. If it's true, how come no one has given the details of where and how this mind boggling amount has been spent? Just sloshing around figures without backing it up with facts is lame to say the least.

By the way, $70 billion can raise seven strike corps with all its supporting elements!! But most of it was spent on running down a few militants in the badlands of the North West?

 

[xyxmt]

Actually I am so happy that pakistan could now sustain the cost of war for a long time on its own, we know nothing much is coming from US other than what pakistan bills them for transit and thats not even billed to full extent and damages to our road will cost us much more than the peanut we get from US, and i dont blame it on US they have no money.

to Indian haters you know what it means, when Pakistani Economy gets better we can spend much more on proxy this time than any other time in the history. Pakistan army is getting experience in fighting a long war with the toughest enemy.
what doesnt kills us only makes us stronger.

 

[xyxmt]

The aid relationship between the United States and Pakistan is badly out of balance. Heavily weighted toward military aid over economic assistance, it has strengthened the hand of Pakistan’s security establishment at the expense of the civilian government. Both countries have reason to be disappointed that so much U.S. aid—nearly $19 billion since 2002—has achieved so little. Rather than continue to purchase Pakistan’s grudging cooperation on counterterrorism, Washington and Islamabad would both be better served by a renewed emphasis on civilian and development assistance.


Vital Statistics

> Pakistan has been heavily dependent on foreign aid ever since independence in 1947. From 1960 to 2002, the country received $73.1 billion in overseas development assistance.

> The United States is Pakistan’s largest single bilateral donor.

> From 2002 to 2010, the United States gave Pakistan almost $19 billion—an average of more than $2 billion per year—primarily for counter terrorism operations.

> The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, also known as Kerry-Lugar-Berman, commits the United States to provide $7.5 billion in non-military aid to Pakistan over a five-year period.

And what has Pakistan got to show for all this aid? Some Pakistanis contend that $70 billion has been spent by Pakistan in the War Against Terror since 2002! This is complete hogwash. If it's true, how come no one has given the details of where and how this mind boggling amount has been spent? Just sloshing around figures without backing it up with facts is lame to say the least.

By the way, $70 billion can raise seven strike corps with all its supporting elements!! But most of it was spent on running down a few militants in the badlands of the North West?

abbey female ke nai (barber) keeping 200,000 troops in war zones costs money. but if bothers you then ok we didnt spend 70 we only spent 7 billion you happy now. what matter us the most to make every indian happy so its not 70 billion I am officially changing the figures to 7 billion. mera bacha ab to razi ho ja na

you worked so hard, took time away from your family and work to do some research on Pakistan's misfortunes and failure, that is commendable, now its time when a person needs a psychologist, this is called borderline infacuation.

 

[VCheng]

The aid relationship between the United States and Pakistan is badly out of balance. Heavily weighted toward military aid over economic assistance, it has strengthened the hand of Pakistan’s security establishment at the expense of the civilian government. Both countries have reason to be disappointed that so much U.S. aid—nearly $19 billion since 2002—has achieved so little. Rather than continue to purchase Pakistan’s grudging cooperation on counterterrorism, Washington and Islamabad would both be better served by a renewed emphasis on civilian and development assistance.
.........

The last sentence above is particularly correct, but the leaders in Pakistan are likely to continue to insist that they should be allowed to divert funds as they alone see fit in the name of "sovereignty", which is not necessarily what you suggest.

 

[graphican]

What are other options you have?? You are part of a mess called War on Terror and you cannot win it alone..

After living this war for 10 years, we don't buy this as our war. We feel we are entangled in it and we can get out by making few decissions. Afghans are not hostile towards Pakistan neither we are to them. TTP is multifaceted but the major face of it comes as a reaction to Pakistan's cooperation with USA on that. The time we say "we are done with this $hit", we will have 60% of terrorism issue resolved. Win Tribes to your side and have an end to this menace.

 

[karan.1970]

to Indian haters you know what it means, when Pakistani Economy gets better we can spend much more on proxy this time than any other time in the history. Pakistan army is getting experience in fighting a long war with the toughest enemy.
what doesnt kills us only makes us stronger.

I think its not a when question. Its an IF question and a pretty big if..

 

[Norboo]

abbey female ke nai (barber) keeping 200,000 troops in war zones costs money. but if bothers you then ok we didnt spend 70 we only spent 7 billion you happy now. what matter us the most to make every indian happy so its not 70 billion I am officially changing the figures to 7 billion. mera bacha ab to razi ho ja na

Don't talk nonsense when you know squat about costs of deployment. The only extra expenditure incurred for deploying 200,000 troops (As per your lopsided estimate) in forward areas is the cost of logistics support which means consumption of extra fuel and 'wear and tear' on vehicles for transporting supplies, spares and ammo. The ammo fired from your artillery and small arms is mostly 'Practice' ammo that would in any case have been fired during practice on field firing ranges!

And thus, forward deployment would NOT cost $70 billion or even $7 billion!! (Even a female ke nai (barber) knows that....)