What's new

Pakistan's lobbyists target Congress

Neo

RETIRED

New Recruit

Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Pakistan's lobbyists target Congress

By: Patrick O'Connor and Samuel Loewenberg
Nov 6, 2007 06:03 AM EST

The Pakistani government deployed a team of lobbyists to Capitol Hill on Monday to contain the fallout from the destabilizing actions by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, as congressional Democrats and the Bush administration sought a review of the country’s foreign aid.

“The focus is on the Hill right now,” said Mark Tavlarides, a former national security aide in the Clinton administration whose firm, Van Scoyoc Associates, is paid $55,000 a month from the Musharraf government — a significant boost from the $40,000 the firm earned before July.

In the wake of Musharraf’s moves over the weekend to scuttle the constitution and, effectively, declare martial law to hold onto power, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and top congressional Democrats promised to review the $845 million in foreign aid the administration has requested for Pakistan next year.

Congressional Democrats may want to be more punitive toward the authoritarian regime than the Bush administration, which cast its lot with Musharraf after the Sept. 11 attacks. The Pakistani government — and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto — have lined up some of the capital’s top lobbying talent, ensuring that the struggle for power in Islamabad will have a Washington front.

“Pakistan will only be a reliable and capable ally against terrorism when its government is not seen as an enemy by its own people,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement. “The interests of the United States are best advanced by policies that do not promote one goal at the expense of the other.”

The lobbyists will have their work cut out for them, as lawmakers finalize an end-of-the-year spending package to fund each federal agency.

Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), who chairs a powerful subcommittee that allocates foreign aid urged her congressional colleagues Monday to revisit the $747 million the House approved earlier this year for Pakistan.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), her counterpart in the Senate, included in his version of the bill restrictions on that money if the State Department does not demonstrate the Pakistani government has implemented Democratic reforms, such as allowing “free, fair and inclusive” election, “respecting the independence of the judiciary” and ensuring freedom of expression for journalists and critics of the government.

“U.S. aid to the Musharraf government should stop until constitutional order, civil liberties and judicial independence are restored, until political prisoners are released, and until free and fair elections are allowed,” Leahy said in a statement Monday. “The Bush administration has only paid lip service to the abuses of Gen. Musharraf’s authoritarian rule.”

Congressional Democrats have been at odds with the White House all year, but both sides exhibited a willingness to cooperate over foreign aid funding.

“This is one where the administration and the Congress should sit down together and work for a common purpose,” House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said Monday at the National Press Club.

The divisions may come over the money set aside for counterterrorism, which appears safe for the moment. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “We are reviewing all of our assistance programs, although we are mindful not to do anything that would undermine ongoing counterterrorism efforts.”

As Musharraf moved to stifle dissent in recent months, his backers and opponents alike have marshaled Washington’s lobbying community on their behalf.

Just last month, the Pakistani Embassy hired Cassidy & Associates for a whopping one-year, $1.2 million contract. Heading up the account is Robin Raphel, a former assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs in the Clinton administration. The firm declined to comment on its lobbying activities on behalf of the embassy.

Tavlarides said he is “basically trying to get reactions from [members of Congress] about the state of emergency. The embassy recognizes that Congress is a coequal branch of government in shaping U.S. policy towards Pakistan.”

Meanwhile, the Pakistani opposition party, led by Bhutto, has retained public relations giant Burson-Marsteller and its affiliates, the lobbying firm BKSH & Associates, and the polling firm Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates. The firm declined comment on its activities, which it is charging an initial $75,000, to be followed with monthly payments of $28,500.

The contract filed with the Justice Department does, however, give some insight into what all of the money buys. Among the promised services: surveys of “100 American political, journalistic, and business elites in Washington, D.C., and New York”; an “internal brainstorming session”; and setting up meetings for Bhutto in Washington “with an eye towards convincing U.S. officials that Prime Minister Bhutto is still relevant to further the democratic process in Pakistan.”

At the top of the Pakistan government’s worry list is that it will lose American foreign aid, which has totaled some $10 billion since the Sept. 11 attacks, most of it military, according to an analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The government’s lobbyists “have to walk a fine line. Lots of members are upset about this,” said a Democratic congressional aide working on the issue, who added that so far, the issue has not split down partisan lines.

It’s unclear, though, whether the administration will act to tighten American aid to Pakistan. A planned sale of F-16s to Pakistan “is definitely going to be under discussion,” the Democratic aide said.

He noted that aid does not come in one lump package but, instead, in many “different spigots.”

“The administration will figure out some spigots to remove or delay to signal that we are not happy with them,” said the aide.

Brookings Institution scholar Stephen P. Cohen has long been critical of the aid program, arguing in a recent paper that the United States has become “Musharraf’s ATM machine, allowing him to build up a military establishment that was irrelevant to his (and our) real security threat, yet presiding over an intensification of anti-American feelings in Pakistan itself, and failing to provide adequate aid to Pakistan’s failing social and educational sectors.”

Lobbyists from the Pakistan government, Bhutto and rival India have all been actively working Congress for months. And recently, they have been joined by human rights organizations like the International Crisis Group.

It remains unclear exactly what Bhutto is seeking, said a Democratic congressional aide working on Pakistan issues. Her lobbyists’ arguments were “less harsh than I thought they might be,” said the aide, speculating on rumors that Bhutto may be trying to cut a power-sharing deal with Musharraf.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus, called for timely elections and protection for opposition voices.

India, meanwhile, has long been using the issue of religious extremism in Pakistan to gain leverage on the contentious issue of control of Kashmir, which has been a simmering conflict for decades. Among India’s lobbying firms is GOP powerhouse Barbour, Griffith and Rogers, which is being paid $58,333 a month, according to its 2005 Justice Department filing. The firm declined to comment.

Pakistan's lobbyists target Congress - Patrick O'Connor and Samuel Loewenberg - Politico.com
 
the only thing that i am concerned is that how can MS bhutto come up with so much money. i think we should intensify our efforts to thwart any indian plans. i think the government of pakistan should also work with the pakistani's here in the US.
 
The Indian lobby is quits strong, and getting stronger.

However, I think Pakistan won't have much to worry about since Bush has no choice but to back Musharraf, in the absence of any other faithful allies in the country.

Also, backing Bhutto seems to be a nice backup plan from the US incase anything happens to dislodge our beloved General.
 
yes but that is why i am saying that pakistani here need to organize themselves. Pakistani and indians are the biggest number of professionals that immigrate to the US every year. this means that both of our community can roll out some considerable dough. i am going to ask around here and if i can will try to volunteer for a pakistani lobbyist group.
 
yes but that is why i am saying that pakistani here need to organize themselves. Pakistani and indians are the biggest number of professionals that immigrate to the US every year. this means that both of our community can roll out some considerable dough. i am going to ask around here and if i can will try to volunteer for a pakistani lobbyist group.

Dear KWB,

Even for USD 1.2 million people are not ready to lobby for Pakistan because of the EMERGENCY. Please read below. I hope now you understand that from the Emergency Pakistan has only lost friends.

Regards


Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Pakistan embassy tries to put good face on cancelled lobbying contract
By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: In an effort to put a good face on the cancellation by Cassidy & Associates of a $1.2 million lobbying contract because of Musharraf’s government being ‘unsellable’ and the situation in Pakistan, the Pakistan embassy has stated that the contract was in a “trial” stage cancelled by mutual agreement.

However, the facts are otherwise. Cassidy acted honourably by saying that it was no longer in a position to deliver on the contract in an effective manner and hence it was pulling out.

Here is the text of the Pakistan embassy press release issued on Friday, “Responding to questions related to the withdrawal of Cassidy & Associates from the contract, the Embassy spokesman said that the contract for one year was still at the trial phase when during the course of the first month of association, both the Embassy of Pakistan and Cassidy & Associates, came to the conclusion that the latter could not effectively implement the contract as lobbyist. As a result, Cassidy & Associates asked for withdrawal from the contract that the Embassy has accepted, the spokesman added.”
 
But this is only for the time being the emergency is not going to go on forever. i was talking in the longterm.
 
But this is only for the time being the emergency is not going to go on forever. i was talking in the longterm.

But the damage has been done effects will be seen for long term.
 
Pakistan's lobbyists target Congress

By: Patrick O'Connor and Samuel Loewenberg
Nov 6, 2007 06:03 AM EST

“Pakistan will only be a reliable and capable ally against terrorism when its government is not seen as an enemy by its own people,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement. “The interests of the United States are best advanced by policies that do not promote one goal at the expense of the other.”

It's people like this that really affirm that there's no point in doing political deals with the US. Imagine one of them wielding any governmental power. Not a clue. This is silly on quite a few counts

1) The current Pakistani administration is seen as an enemy by some people because the Americans have forced the hand of the administration to hunt down Al Q fugitives and their helpers. In other words, doesn't matter which future government comes to power, there will be the same segment of the population against the government, since the US will want cooperation in Afghanistan

2) It's not all the people of Pakistan that see the government as the enemy. It's a specific segment of foreign Al Qaeda radicals and their hired mercenaries in the triba regions. It's a very small segment of the population in other words.

3) The "expense of the other" is precisely what is detrimental to both the US and the Pakistan. Al Q/fanatics are not in the interests of Pakistan or the US. So there's nothing wrong in making this side expendable.
 
But the damage has been done effects will be seen for long term.


NO not going to damage anything as i see it all planed just to facilitate BB with backing of US.


Just read today BB has been given permission to hold all political activities.

Why all other political parties are not given the same?
Why US and other outside powers did not speak for the same for others.

its pitty BB and Co had played a well planned game and only other political parties, Media and Lawyers are made scapgoat.

Just see the Judges removed but Why ??? :)
i will carry on and debate this point in other thread.

TC
 
NO not going to damage anything as i see it all planed just to facilitate BB with backing of US.


Just read today BB has been given permission to hold all political activities.

Why all other political parties are not given the same?
Why US and other outside powers did not speak for the same for others.

its pitty BB and Co had played a well planned game and only other political parties, Media and Lawyers are made scapgoat.

Just see the Judges removed but Why ??? :)
i will carry on and debate this point in other thread.

TC

So you are only proving effects can be seen in short term too.
None of the other parties had a deal with Musharaf, Its all hushed up. Musharaf will find it hard to explain but in non - Democratic setup and no effective constitution Musharaf does not need to explain.
 
Jana,

Like it or not, BB is the next PM.

Not that it will be the best of things to happen for the sub continent.

Media and Lawyers are not the scapegoats. They are all seeking their moment in the sun and having a ball at the expense of stability of Pakistan!
 
Doubt she'll even win a majority. Her only strongHold is in pockets of Sindh, while Musharraf has popularity in Punjab (the biggest province). Difficult to see him losing. Musharraf also has popularity in Balochistan.
 
RR,

I am being pragmatic and not wishful!

Her rally was most 'impressive' and surprising for me to understand!

She is being treated with the kid glove while Mian Nawaz Sharif was shown the door! How come?

I rather face reality, even if it is distasteful, and weave through it for the best!
 
Her rally was most 'impressive' and surprising for me to understand!

Lol! what do you expect if some one offers an oridinary labourer who works for just RS 200/ day RS 2000 and tell him to include in her rally. Do u think he will say no? Besides her party members are in thousands, so to make a rally look like a million march is no big deal for her. But the reality is different. She doesnt enjoy popularity of the masses. But i do have a feeling that musharraf may bring her in as well for her support, but over all no political party will achieve two third majority as they had in the past and a coalition government will be formed under musharraf.
 
Back
Top Bottom