Pakistan's Nuclear Assets wont be a secret anymore.

[Jango]

Exactly, just like two occupants of the same boat arguing about who should mend the hole on the other side of the boat first since it seems to be bigger as the boat sinks.

That's an excellent example VC.

 

[Pfpilot]

What an incredibly interesting thread, I thank you all for presenting multiple sides of the issue with a great amount detail.

In the multitude of points discussed, the inherent acceptance of the Army as institution that deserves preferential treatment is interesting. The often proclaimed view that the military cut of the budget seems large because of widespread corruption and small tax base not only misses the point, but it further reinforces the flawed thinking we employ when dealing with the military.

In a state where the military is subservient to the public and civilian leadership, it must live with the ebbs and flows of the economy and must accommodate for the changing needs of the people. That is to say, in a struggling economy, investment in infrastructure and grass roots business development takes precedence. The budget should be prioritized based on the needs of the nation, not on the needs of a military. The fact that corruption and a small tax base are genuine problems should not take away from the corresponding fact, that the budgetary outlays should take place, while keeping this reality in mind. If for example, 30% of our funds are lost due to corruption; all the while education and healthcare are operating as massively underfunded, then there is a need to reallocate funds accordingly to rectify the issue. Now, I don't necessarily mean to shift funds around during the fiscal year, but after 60 years, the government should be able to accurately forecast where it falls short and where there is an access of funds.

If we are to assume that no part of our economy is doing particularly well, then the issue of prioritizing comes to the forefront again. The military exists to protect the people, but with rampant disease, a failed academic system, and little opportunity of upward mobility; Pakistanis die many times over at the hands of their own nation's failures. In the end, developing from within should take precedence over developing a military to throttle the enemy. For the current state of Pakistan begs the question: what is the Pakistani military protecting? What does Pakistan have to offer its own people, much less the world, that would entice outside forces to invade us?

Maintaining a strong security force to defend the borders is one thing; pouring money into defense projects to take on a nation that is literally facing the other way is more a product of the perpetual largess our military has enjoyed since Pakistan's inception. The threats Pakistan faces have changed, but the threat perception hasn't. The needs of our people have changed, but our economic policies remained the same. The blame can be placed at the feet of the civilian leadership; but it's a civilian leadership that has been limited at every turn by the ambitions of men who wanted military glory.

 

[VCheng]

Thank you for that post PfPilot.

One should really ask where is the peace dividend from the nuclear deterrence? Now that Pakistan has a credible nuclear deterrent, it should lead to massive reductions in conventional weapons and standing manpower, and a total realignment of relations with India.

Why is that not happening?

 

[BATMAN]

Would you mind clarifying that comment?

I'm surprised that you are not familiar!

Anyhow, Indians count Pakistani defence budget wrt % GDP.

If you don't believe than type 'pakistan defence budget' on google and see what you get!

 

[BATMAN]

Thank you for that post PfPilot.

One should really ask where is the peace dividend from the nuclear deterrence? Now that Pakistan has a credible nuclear deterrent, it should lead to massive reductions in conventional weapons and standing manpower, and a total realignment of relations with India.

Why is that not happening?

So much propaganda on media, regarding unsafe nukes, ought to have consequences!

While the peace dividend is; Pakistan is still not nuked by Indians, contrary to popular Indian demand.

 

[BATMAN]

In a state where the military is subservient to the public and civilian leadership

There are always rules in any system. Cuts and analysis of defence budget in public is not the only duty of holy houses of democracies around the globe.
To ensure proper use of defence budget you have defence minister.
While, Pakistan army is a professional institution, not personal regime of a democratic dictator, where uneducated are appointed on political basis and labor unions are being patronised.

Militarise have daily job to perform, and Pak army has taken oath of safe guarding Pakistani interest, not being subservient to politicians and political parties.

While, Army is doing much beyond their professional job description.

Army has worked as corruption eradication authority, Army has worked as disaster relief authority, army has invested their savings in Pakistan, Army is busy developing arms industry, Army is biggest employer of civilians, after govt. of Pakistan.
Army is doing its best to help the under privileged of rural areas.
No instituation of Pakistan can deliver as much as army has delivered for Pakistan, todate.

And last but not leaset... all the knowledgeable of budgets, kindly tell me the budget of interior ministry? and President house?

 

[VCheng]

77% of the budget is taken up as follows:

Debt servicing is 1140 billion, 44%.

Defense budget is 648.2 billion (estimated) as follows, 25%:

Defense Affairs and Services = 545 billion
Military Pensions = 98 billion
PAEC = 40 billion
Defence Division = 3.2 billion
Defence Production Division = 2 billion

Subsidies are 208 billion, 8%.

Everything else gets the remaining 23%.

My estimate of nearly 650 billion may be too small:

from: Military purse may be twice as large as budgeted – The Express Tribune

Military purse may be twice as large as budgeted
By Shahbaz RanaPublished: June 6, 2012

ISLAMABAD: As opposed to a stated spending of Rs545 billion, or one-sixth of the federal budget, Pakistan may actually be spending around Rs913billion, or 31% of next year’s Rs2.96 trillion budget, on defence.

Besides the overt budget, an additional amount will be provided to the military out of its share in the Coalition Support Fund (CSF), expected to be disbursed by the United States, and services fees from the United Nations on account of military personnel involved in peacekeeping missions.

Besides this, a significant chunk will be provided from the budget to pay pensions to retired military officials and for progressing country’s defense development programme.

When combined with allocations to the country’s interest payments, which amount to Rs1.1 trillion, or 35% of the total budget, only one-third of the budget is left for running the government, and development.

Additional allocations

For the next fiscal, the government has budgeted receiving Rs150 billion from the US on account of CSF reimbursements and, according to an arrangement between the military and the civilian leadership, as much as 60% of the CSF reimbursements would be given to the military. By that account, the military will get Rs90 billion next year, provided, of course, that the US reimburses the outstanding amount.

The United Nations, meanwhile, will provide Rs30 billion next year on account of services fee for Pakistani forces taking part in peacekeeping missions under the UN flag.

The government has also allocated Rs98 billion for military pensions, according to the budget documents. For the sake of pensions, the military insists that, after retirement, military officials should be treated as ‘civilians’. When it comes to accountability, though, retired military officials are prosecuted under military laws. Currently, the General Headquarters is not allowing the National Accountability Bureau to independently probe three former military generals who have been named in the Rs1.8 billion National Logistic Cell scam by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

Besides that, an additional Rs150 billion will be given to the army for taking forward the country’s defence programme.

Of the Rs545.3 billion stated budget, Rs264.4 billion has been set aside for the army, Rs114.2 billion for the air force and Rs52.8 billion for the navy. Besides that, Rs114 billion has been placed under the head of establishment and organs account.

Transparency

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan recently joined the chorus of voices demanding that the military’s budget be audited, but the Auditor General of Pakistan Akhtar Buland Rana informed the PAC that some of the military sub-departments were resisting the audit.

In the post-budget press conference, Finance Minister Dr Hafeez Shaikh avoided the question regarding the actual defence budget but said that his team “will respond.”

The finance ministry, however, did not respond till the filing of the story. “Once in an international conference, held in Washington, an American diplomat stressed the need to cut the defence budget,” said Saeed Ahmad Qureshi, a former federal finance secretary. “I responded that our defense budget is not made in Islamabad but in New Delhi; to reduce defense expenses, the Americans should push Indians to reduce their defense budget,” Qureshi said.

He added that, historically, Pakistan’s defence budget is based on a certain proportion of the Indian defence budget, aimed at maintaining a defensive deterrent against any Indian offence.

Qureshi, however, seconded Imran Khan, saying transparency is imperative and people should know what is happening with taxpayers’ money.

Published In The Express Tribune, June 6th, 2012.

Like I said before, this situation cannot continue without dire consequences. It simply cannot.

 

[Contrarian]

So much propaganda on media, regarding unsafe nukes, ought to have consequences!

While the peace dividend is; Pakistan is still not nuked by Indians, contrary to popular Indian demand.

Have you considered the possibility that if Pakistan changed its approach towards India(something decided by the Pakistani Army, not the polity) Pakistan would not need to be attacked by anyone or its sovereignty violated by anyone - that includes both India and US.

Before you start saying that changing of approach means letting go of 'Pakistan's jugular' and accepting servility of India(something many Pakistani's keep harping about) and whatnot, i will just ask you one question:

Pakistan's has never let go of the Kashmir issue, its military has tried every trick in the book including war, till date, has Pakistan been able to get Kashmir?

So if the result of both being hostile and being friendly is the same - ie India not letting go of Kashmir - isnt Pakistan's interests better served by being friends?

In which case there is no need for Pakistan to use non state actor to further state interests or the Indian need to threaten Pakistan ? In which case Pakistan would not have to suffer having and empowering these non state actors within Pakistan, and having to suffer the blowback from them, a non radicalized or weaponized society.

Whereas the peace dividend(materialistic) coming from being friends with India will outweigh any gain any other country can give Pakistan except for Iran and Afghanistan. Geography can never be substituted.

 

[PiyaraPakistan]

A.Rafey
Zardari is the enemy of our Armed Forces, traitors like him and Nawaz Cant be trusted NEVER! Imran Khan Will save the day!

Dont promot your idealism here, so far Nawaz has proved himself as a hero (28-05-1998).

 

[SQ8]

I'm surprised that you are not familiar!

Anyhow, Indians count Pakistani defence budget wrt % GDP.

If you don't believe than type 'pakistan defence budget' on google and see what you get!

Im surprised as to how is that is classified an Indian approach?
Its just a methodology. It can be used by an Indian or someone from timbuktu.

 

[SQ8]

So much propaganda on media, regarding unsafe nukes, ought to have consequences!

While the peace dividend is; Pakistan is still not nuked by Indians, contrary to popular Indian demand.

This conclusion is very surprising as well. Where is there popular Indian demand?
I dont see Indians burning our flags in the street or polls coming up daily on nuking us..

 

[Jango]

Thank you for that post PfPilot.

One should really ask where is the peace dividend from the nuclear deterrence? Now that Pakistan has a credible nuclear deterrent, it should lead to massive reductions in conventional weapons and standing manpower, and a total realignment of relations with India.

Why is that not happening?

It isn't really India that is the top concern of the high command at the moment. Long term problem, perhaps, but not right now.

 

[Jango]

My estimate of nearly 650 billion may be too small:

from: Military purse may be twice as large as budgeted – The Express Tribune



Like I said before, this situation cannot continue without dire consequences. It simply cannot.

This article you mentioned, isn't the UN fee the right of the army? Every army gets money for sending troops to UN missions.

And then the US CSF is also money granted by the US, not taken from the budget (If I am wrong, do correct me). The US knows where it's money is going to be spent, and if anything, the share of army in CSF was reduced by army in favour of going to the civilian side.


Thirdly, what's wrong with giving pensions to people who have spent more than two decades of their lives working for PA? I myself have a couple of family members receiving pension.

 

[VCheng]

This article you mentioned, isn't the UN fee the right of the army? Every army gets money for sending troops to UN missions.

And then the US CSF is also money granted by the US, not taken from the budget (If I am wrong, do correct me). The US knows where it's money is going to be spent, and if anything, the share of army in CSF was reduced by army in favour of going to the civilian side.


Thirdly, what's wrong with giving pensions to people who have spent more than two decades of their lives working for PA? I myself have a couple of family members receiving pension.

I am not saying anything about what is right or wrong, but merely presenting figures as being indicative of the relative amounts being spent on defence versus other heads, that is all.

The point is that such a high rate of defence spending is simply unsustainable.

 

[Jango]

I am not saying anything about what is right or wrong, but merely presenting figures as being indicative of the relative amounts being spent on defence versus other heads, that is all.

The point is that such a high rate of defence spending is simply unsustainable.

So it is the army's fault that it gets money from UN missions, and instead should redirect it towards health and education?

It is the army's fault for giving pensions?

It is the army's fault that the US does not give as much towards health and education as it does towards military?

Money from UN missions does not put an additional burden on national exchequer if that is what you are pointing out.