What's new

The Pak-US Relationship

The strictest clauses would be here
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

This first one can be waived by the president of USA

Any direct assistance provided or payments made on or after January 1, 2010, by the United States to the Government of Pakistan , and any information required by the United States prior to providing the assistance or making the payments, may only be provided or made to, or received from, civilian authorities of a government of Pakistan constituted through a free and fair election. For purposes of this subsection, a government of Pakistan constituted through a free and fair election is a government that is determined by the President to have been elected in a free and fair manner, taking into account the laws and constitution of Pakistan and internationally recognized standards.



and

(C) An evaluation of efforts undertaken by the Government of Pakistan to--

(i) disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremist and terrorist groups in the FATA and settled areas;

(ii) close terrorist camps, including those of Jamaat-ud-Dawa, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Jaish-e-Mohammed;

(iii) cease all support for extremist and terrorist groups;

(iv) prevent cross-border attacks;

(v) increase oversight over curriculum in madrasas, including closing madrasas with direct links to the Taliban or other extremist and terrorist groups; and

(vi) improve counter-terrorism financing and anti-money laundering laws, apply for observer status for the Financial Action Task Force, and steps taken to adhere to the United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism.
 
Other than those conditions (which are things to be measured, not minimum requirements), the bill is fairly benign. Do we have any lawyers on the forum with ability and patience to read through the bill ?
 
Pakistanis should see this as primarily symbolic, psychological -- as soon as Pakistani strategic compulsions are reactivated - which maybe soon, miscalculating the phase shift in the Talib insurgency, as the end of the insurgency - the political pressure brought against Pakistan by the U.S's strategic allies will put a quick end to the funds - these funds should be used in the planning for further incidents of IDPs and the reconstruction, rehabilitation, Build phase of Clear, Hold and Build.

If U.S Nato and U.S Gulf states allies could fashion together a package that adds U.S$2.0 Billion annually to the package, Pakistan would have greater incentive to fashion a strategic outlook, that is geared towards regional cooperation istead of confrontation, this could mean a much different Afghanistan and India policy.
 
Pakistanis should see this as primarily symbolic, psychological -- as soon as Pakistani strategic compulsions are reactivated - which maybe soon, miscalculating the phase shift in the Talib insurgency, as the end of the insurgency - the political pressure brought against Pakistan by the U.S's strategic allies will put a quick end to the funds - these funds should be used in the planning for further incidents of IDPs and the reconstruction, rehabilitation, Build phase of Clear, Hold and Build.

If U.S Nato and U.S Gulf states allies could fashion together a package that adds U.S$2.0 Billion annually to the package, Pakistan would have greater incentive to fashion a strategic outlook, that is geared towards regional cooperation istead of confrontation, this could mean a much different Afghanistan and India policy.

The bill is worth a substantial portion of Pak budget and can completely wipe out fiscal deficit (at least as projected in this years Pak budget) . The bill also specifies a time period of until 2013. Frankly, there is so much money with so little strings attached that leaving it behind would be monumentally wrong.

About your plan, It is not like China or Gulf states are bending over backwards to give out money. Except UAE (non-Dubai) most other Gulf states are feeling the pinch of the recession too, and $2B is bound to show up, even on a petrostates budget.
 
wtf

Indeed you are correct about the sums involved - keeping Pakistan commited to a particular set of policies is a Herculean task, and we are all out of Hercules - which means Pakistan will not be able to take advantage in the way it otherwise might have.

However; Hercules has a great equalizeer in U.S $$ and we are talking about Pakistani polikticians and bureaucrats, if they know one thing, it's which side their bread is buttered on.
 
By Taj Hashmi

15 June, 2009
Countercurrents.org

Honolulu, Hawaii: There seems to be some impending changes in America’s Pakistan policy or as one may put it, in its India policy. What one gets in the media and can only guess about what President Obama’s personal letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh conveys (hand delivered by Under Secretary of State William Burns) is that the US wants to play the role of an honest broker in India-Pakistan disputes, mainly over Kashmir. Is it due to Pakistan’s smart diplomacy, clever use of the “Islam Card” to outwit the Taliban or its skilful military manoeuvring to overwhelm the Taliban and the world at large? Can we also impute this stunning development to Obama’s “historic” Cairo-speech earlier this month, widely known as his attempt to seek new beginning in ties with the Muslim World?

One does not have to read too much into what William Burns stated at a press conference in New Delhi this Thursday, June 11th: “The Kashmir issue has to be settled in line with the aspirations of Kashmiris. It remains our view that a resolution of that issue has to take into account wishes of Kashmiri people.” India could take this as an affront to its well-established state policy which considers Kashmir “as integral as Bombay and Calcutta”, to paraphrase its first Prime Minister Nehru.

It is noteworthy that Burns made his comments on Kashmir the day after he had met the pro-independence Kashmiri Hurriyat [Freedom] Conference chief Mirwaiz Umar Farooq. What might be even more embarrassing for India diplomatically is America’s advising the country to “close or prune down” its consulates in Jalalabad and Kandahar in Afghanistan, in close proximity to Pak-Afghan border, allegedly “fomenting trouble” in the NWFP and Balochistan.

It is noteworthy that by late April this year, to the dismay and surprise of most Pakistanis and the whole world, while the rag-tag Pakistani Taliban were in control of major cities and hamlets of Swat and only around sixty miles off Islamabad, Pakistani government and armed forces seemed like sitting ducks on the verge of unconditional surrender. Many if not most Western analysts and governments publicly registered their concern at the “impending fall” of Islamabad. Surprisingly enough, even the State Department bought some of the media and think tank gibberish about the “growing threat” to Islamabad. To them, it was no longer a matter of “if” but “when” the Taliban and their allies – including “rogue elements” in the Pakistani armed forces – would take-over the country and its nuclear weapons posing the biggest threat to the whole world, for the first time since the end of the Cold War.

However, what was most commonsensical and supposed to happen has happened. The well-trained, professional Pakistani armed forces simply repulsed the threat, and are routing and chasing out the bands of ill-trained Taliban fighters who have no air, armoured and artillery support. Most importantly, for various reasons, the Islamist militants had very little grassroots support in and around Swat, FATA and elsewhere in the country. Of late the local populace has raised their own lashkars or militias in support of the government and chasing out local and foreign Taliban-al-Qaeda elements from the NWFP. Consequently in the wake of the Taliban defeat and withdrawal from the Swat valley, alarmist Western analysts and “experts” have toned down their attacks on Pakistani government’s and armed forces’ “intransigence”, “inability” and “duplicity” in tackling the Taliban. It seems American government is no longer worried about Pakistani nuclear arsenal going to the wrong hands.

Presently analysts seem to be convinced that Pakistan’s signing the so-called “Taliban Deal” in February made with the Tahrik-e-Nisab-e-Shariat-e-Muhhammadi (TNSM), not with the Taliban, has ultimately paid rich dividends to the government. The NWFP government’s signing the deal with Sufi Muhammad, the estranged father-in-law of Taliban leader Mullah Faizullah was nothing more than a hollow promise to “implement Shariah” in the Swat Valley by the government . With hindsight, this hitherto widely criticized deal, often ridiculed as surrender to the extremists may be singled out as a major step taken in the right direction. Another successful gambit by the Government in April, the so-called Nizam-e-Adl which “provided” Shariah through the courts in the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) in the NWFP, almost totally befooled the half-educated Islamists and Taliban.

In fact, the Government promised to implement nothing different from what the 1973 Constitution (Article 227) already guarantees to the whole nation: “All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah [teachings of the Prophet] and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such injunctions”. Taliban’s late realization about the triviality of the deals and their consequential retaliations against government forces and “non-conformist” locals cost them dearly. By rejecting the “Shariah Deal” the Taliban ironically projected themselves to the people as mere bandits and terrorists; fighting for something else other than Shariah, which people thought had already been provided by the government.

This, however, does not mean that Pakistan is free from trouble; terrorism will continue to haunt the nation for quite some time. In view of the recent extermination of the LTTE in Sri Lanka, once considered to be the most well-organized terrorist outfit in the world, one may surmise, the marginalized Taliban-al-Qaeda elements have no future in Pakistan. Consequently reposing absolute faith in Pakistan’s ability and interest in weeding out Islamist militants from its territory, America has been forthcoming in congratulating Pakistan considering it an important ally in the “war against extremism”, or what until recently was known as “war against terror”. Meanwhile the US government has come forward with several billion dollars worth civil and military aid packages to Pakistan.

One may attribute this shift in American policy towards Pakistan mainly to the latter’s successful political and military manoeuvring in the recent past. Pakistan’s resolve to weed out Islamist militancy its way is paying off; and is the main factor behind the impending changes one expects in America’s Pakistan Policy. However, Pakistan’s strategic location next to the more turbulent Afghanistan, which one does not know who would be controlling in the event of Western troop withdrawal, is an important factor in this regard. Afghanistan cannot have peace with an unfriendly Pakistan. And Pakistan cannot be converted into an American ally overnight, as it used to be during the Cold War years, unless America becomes re-assuring and friendly towards Pakistan, and most importantly, not perceived by the latter as “more friendly” towards its arch rival India than to itself, for the obvious security factors.

While Obama’s Cairo-speech is an important indication which way America will be going to win over the Muslim World. His emphasizing the importance of resolving territorial disputes in the Muslim World – rallying points for Muslim militants and extremists – may be an important catalyst in this regard. His asking Israel to stop further Settlements in the West Bank and William Burns’s advising India to resolve the Kashmir problem “in line with the aspirations of Kashmiris” are important indications of the forthcoming sea change in America’s “Muslim Policy”. Let us wait and see the short- and long-term implications of the “impending pro-Muslim tilt” in Obama’s foreign policy, especially towards Pakistan, in regard to the regional and global security perspective.

Emerging Changes In America’s Pakistan Policy By Taj Hashmi
 
US Congress approves $1.4 billion for Pakistan

By Anwar Iqbal
Friday, 19 Jun, 2009

WASHINGTON: Both chambers of the US Congress have approved a war supplemental which includes $1.4 billion in economic and security assistance for Pakistan but the Senate also added a condition requiring a close scrutiny of American policies in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The aid to Pakistan was tagged to a whopping $106 billion war supplemental aid package for Afghanistan and Iraq that the Senate passed on Thursday evening.

The Senate passed the measure following a one-sided 91-5 vote while the House approved the bill on Wednesday by a much closer 226-202 vote.

The assistance includes $225 million for those displaced during the military operation in Swat and other areas. The US is the largest contributor to the relief and rehabilitation funds for these three million refugees, so far committing more than $300 million.

During the legislative process, Senators Bob Corker, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham added a provision for setting up benchmarks for US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

According to this provision:

(1) Within 90 days of enactment, the US President must submit to Congress a clear statement of his objectives for Afghanistan and Pakistan and the benchmarks that will be used to quantify progress toward achieving those objectives.

(2) By 30 March 2010 and every 180 days after that time, the President must submit a report to Congress assessing progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan based on the benchmarks identified in the first report, justify any changes to benchmarks, and identify any additional resources or authorities that may be needed to better achieve the objectives.


The bill is now before President Barack Obama, who is likely to sign it into law without any delay. The 2009 supplemental bill includes more than $90 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The $1.4 billion allocated for Pakistan includes $707 million to overcome the economic crisis and for improving agriculture and food security.

The $707 million also covers assistance for the displaced population, for strengthening national and provincial governance, expanding the rule of law, and improving access to quality education.

Another $700 million is for enhancing Pakistan’s counterinsurgency capability under the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, available from September 30th 2009.

Meanwhile, the US House of Representatives has also approved $2.4 billion for Pakistan in a separate war supplemental bill for the Pentagon.

This $2.4 billion for Pakistan is in addition to a $3.1 billion assistance package signed in June 2003. This year Pakistan receives the last installment of $600 million from this package.

The largest chunk in the Pentagon supplemental for Pakistan comes from the Coalition Support Fund, about $1 billion.

This money is the reimbursement for Pakistan’s efforts to combat extremists along the Pak-Afghan border.

About $900 million has been set aside for the reconstruction of the US Embassy and consulates in Pakistan. The fund includes $46 million for increase in staff.

The total inflow of money from the US into Pakistan this financial year would be $3.27 billion including $957 million in appropriations and another $912 million on account of coalition support funds.
 
Beat extremists you can, says Obama By Anwar Iqbal
Sunday, 21 Jun, 2009 | 06:30 AM PST


| Dawn correspondent Anwar Iqbal face to face with US President Barack Obama during an exclusive interview at the White House on Friday. —Dawn World

Obama talks to Pakistan WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama, in an exclusive interview to Dawn, has said that he believes the Pakistani state is strong enough to win the military offensive against the extremists.



In this first-ever one-on-one interview by any US president to the Pakistani media, Mr Obama assured the Pakistani nation that he has no desire to seize Pakistan’s nuclear weapons or send US troops inside the country.



The US president also emphasised the need for resuming the dialogue process between India and Pakistan, which was stalled after the Mumbai terrorist attacks in November last year.



The interview covered a wide-range of subjects — from the controversy involving the Iranian presidential election to Mr Obama’s speech in Cairo earlier this month in which he called for a new beginning between the Muslim and the Western worlds.



The venue, the White House diplomatic room with murals of early settlers, brought out the importance of Mr Obama’s historic victory in last year’s general election.



Close to the murals — under the watchful eyes of George Washington — sat a man who overcame gigantic hurdles to become America’s first non-White president.



Here was a man tasked with finding a graceful end to two unpopular wars — in Iraq and Afghanistan — and to steer America, and the rest of the world, out of an unprecedented economic crisis.



Yet, when he strolled into this oval-shaped room, Mr Obama seemed completely at ease with himself. Tall and slim, the 47-year-old US president had the youngish looks of a man who works out daily.



He walked straight towards the camera, greeting everyone, shook hands, occupied the chair reserved for him, and started talking about how he had a special affection for Pakistan and its people.



Asked to comment on Ayatollah Khamenei’s statement that the US was interfering in Iran’s internal affairs, Mr Obama said what’s happening in Iran was remarkable. ‘To see hundreds of thousands of people in peaceful protest against an election that obviously raised a lot of doubts tells us that this is an issue that the Iranian people care deeply about.’



The US and the West, he said, had been very clear that this was not an issue between the West and Iran; this was an issue about the Iranian people seeking justice and wanting to make sure that their voices were heard.



‘And it’s unfortunate that there are some inside Iran and inside that government that want to use the West and the United States as an excuse,’ he said.



‘We respect Iran’s sovereignty, but we also are witnessing peaceful demonstrations, people expressing themselves, and I stand for that universal principle that people should have a voice in their own lives and their own destiny. And I hope that the international community recognises that we need to stand behind peaceful protests and be opposed to violence or repression.’



Mr Obama said that since there were no international observers in Iran, he could not say if the elections were fair or unfair. ‘But beyond the election, what’s clear is that the Iranian people are wanting to express themselves. And it is critical, as they seek justice and they seek an opportunity to express themselves, that that’s respected and not met with violence.’



‘Your speech in Cairo indeed was a speech that created a lot of stir, both in the US and in the Muslim world. Was it the beginning of something bigger to come, or was it just a one-off thing? He was asked.



‘No, I think that this is going to be a sustained process. As I said in Cairo, one speech is not going to transform policies and relationships throughout the Middle East or throughout the world,’ Mr Obama responded.



‘But what I wanted to do was to describe very clearly that the United States not only respects Muslim communities around the world but that there’s an opportunity for I think a new day, where there’s mutual understanding, mutual tolerance; where the United States is seen as somebody who stands with people in their daily aspirations for an education for their children, for good jobs, for economic development,’ he said.



‘And just as the United States at times has, I think, not fully understood what’s happening in Muslim communities, sometimes there have been countries that haven’t understood the rich history of Muslims in America,’ he added.



‘As I mentioned in that speech, it was Morocco that was the first nation to recognise the United States. We have Muslim Americans who are doing extraordinary things. In fact, their educational attainment and income is generally above the average here in the United States. We have Muslim members of Congress. And, in fact, we have 5 million Muslims, which would make us larger than many other countries that consider themselves Muslim countries.’



Mr Obama then explained how he plans to further expand the peace process he introduced in Cairo.



‘So what we want to do is just begin to open up a dialogue around which we can constructively work together to deal with significant issues,’ he said, acknowledging that ‘part one of those issues is the issue of the Middle East.’



Mr Obama explained that he has been ‘very aggressive’ in saying that Israelis and Palestinians have to resolve their differences and create two states that can live side by side in peace and security.



He said he also has put forward a special envoy, George Mitchell, a former majority leader of the US Senate, to work with the parties involved.



‘But part of the key is also to isolate the extremists who have been wreaking havoc around the world. And we’re seeing that now in Pakistan, and I think the Pakistani government and the people of Pakistan recognise that the kind of mindless violence that we’ve been seeing, that that cannot be the answer to long-term prosperity.’



His comments led to a larger discussion on Pakistan and the issues confronting this nation of 170 million people.



‘Some people say that it is still too early to push Pakistan into a military offensive in South Waziristan; that the Pakistan army, and the Pakistani state, is not strong enough to win this war and that it may break up the country.



What do you say?’



‘Well, let me make two points. Number one, nobody can or should push the Pakistani government. The Pakistani government is accountable to the people of Pakistan,’ said Mr Obama.



‘I think the Pakistani government and the people of Pakistan recognise that when you have extremists who are assassinating moderate clerics like Dr Naeemi, when you have explosions that are killing innocent women and children, that that can’t be the path for development and prosperity for Pakistan,’ he said.



‘And so there’s been a decision that’s made that we support, that the Pakistani military and the Pakistani government will not stand by idly as extremists attempt to disrupt the country,’ Mr Obama said.



‘But ultimately these are decisions to be made by the Pakistani government and the Pakistani people. What the United States believes is, is that we are a partner in the process of peace-loving nations seeking to root out extremism, increase development, and that is the kind of role that we want to play with Pakistan.’



‘Do you believe the Pakistani state is strong enough to win this war?’



‘I have confidence in the Pakistani people and the Pakistani state in resolving differences through a democratic process and to isolate extremists. Dating back to Jinnah, Pakistan has always had a history of overcoming difficulties. There’s no reason why it can’t overcome those difficulties today,’ Mr Obama said.



‘Going back to what we discussed about the Muslim world, there are issues that are too difficult even to discuss – for instance, the Indians don’t even want the ‘K’ word (Kashmir) to be mentioned to them. In your inaugural speech you did mention Kashmir and after that it had been absent from your statements and those of other officials in your administration. Why?’ he was asked.



‘I don’t think that we’ve been silent on the fact that India is a great friend of the United States and Pakistan is a great friend of the United States, and it always grieves us to see friends fighting. And we can’t dictate to Pakistan or India how they should resolve their differences, but we know that both countries would prosper if those differences are resolved,’ said Mr Obama.



‘And I believe that there are opportunities, maybe not starting with Kashmir but starting with other issues, that Pakistan and India can be in a dialogue together and over time to try to reduce tensions and find areas of common interest,’ he said.



‘And we want to be helpful in that process, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to be the mediators in that process. I think that this is something that the Pakistanis and Indians can take leadership on.’



Asked if he was urging India to resume bilateral talks with Pakistan, Mr Obama said: ‘Well, what we have said is that we think that all of South Asia would benefit by reduced tensions between India and Pakistan. I think that dialogue is the best way to reduce tensions.’



Mr Obama noted that recently the Indian and Pakistani leaders met at a regional conference in Russia. Although they did not hold an extensive conversation, it was the start of what may end up being more productive talks in the future.



‘Well, I won’t engage in hypotheticals like that,’ said Mr Obama when asked if the US could seize Pakistan’s nuclear weapons to prevent the Taliban from capturing them. ‘I have confidence that the Pakistani government has safeguarded its nuclear arsenal. It’s Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.’



His main concern, said Mr Obama, was to make sure that the Taliban and other extremist organisations were not taking root in South Asia, Afghanistan and the Middle East.



‘And we want to partner with everybody to make sure that this cancer does not grow. One of the things that I said in my speech in Cairo is that Islam has an extraordinary tradition of tolerance and peaceful coexistence and that tradition is being distorted and being warped,’ he said.



‘We do not want to be in a position where we’re having to send troops to Afghanistan, for example. We would love the Afghans’ government to be secure and stable so that it can ensure that it does not become a safe haven for organisations like Al Qaeda,’ he said.



‘We would much prefer being a partner with countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan, and simply work together on issues of common interest like commerce and increasing trade and improving development in all countries,’ he said.



‘But it’s very difficult to do that if you have people who have distorted a great religion and are now trying to wreak havoc not only in the West but most often directed against fellow Muslims in places like Pakistan. And that is something that we will always stand against.’



Responding to a question about drone attacks inside Pakistan’s tribal zone, Mr Obama said he did not comment on specific operations.



‘But I will tell you that we have no intention of sending US troops into Pakistan. Pakistan and its military are dealing with their security issues.’



The US, he said, was focussing on helping those displaced during recent military operations.



‘Our primary goal is to be a partner and a friend to Pakistan and to allow Pakistan to thrive on its own terms, respecting its own traditions, respecting its own culture. We simply want to make sure that our common enemies, which are extremists who would kill innocent civilians, that that kind of activity is stopped, and we believe that it has to be stopped whether it’s in the United States or in Pakistan or anywhere in the world.’



‘Any plan to visit Pakistan in the near future?’



‘I would love to visit. As you know, I had Pakistani roommates in college who were very close friends of mine. I went to visit them when I was still in college; was in Karachi and went to Hyderabad. Their mothers taught me to cook,’ said Mr Obama.



‘What can you cook?’



‘Oh, keema … daal … You name it, I can cook it. And so I have a great affinity for Pakistani culture and the great Urdu poets.’



‘You read Urdu poetry?’



‘Absolutely. So my hope is that I’m going to have an opportunity at some point to visit Pakistan,’ said Mr Obama.



‘And obviously one of the things that I think ties our countries together is the extraordinary Pakistani-American community that is here in the United States who are thriving and doing great work as physicians and as lawyers and as business people. And one of the great opportunities I think for Pakistan is to be able to draw on all this talent and extraordinary entrepreneurship to help provide concrete benefits to the Pakistani people, and I think that’s one of the biggest challenges for Pakistan,’ he said.



‘We want to be a partner in opening up trade opportunities, but making sure that people on the ground, day to day, they’re getting an education, children are going to school, that farmers are able to get a decent compensation for their products, that electricity and infrastructure is built, because I know the Pakistani people and I know that if the tools are there available to them, then they will thrive and continue to be a great nation.’



‘Some people say that you’re against some of the restrictions introduced in the House version of the aid to Pakistan bill. Are you?’



‘Well, my view is, is that we have to help Pakistan – to provide them the resources that will allow for development. Now, we have in the past supported, I think, Pakistan militarily. I think it is important to make sure that military support is directed at extremists and our common enemies,’ said Mr Obama.



‘But I also think that the relationship between the United States and Pakistan can’t just be based on military-to-military cooperation. It’s got to be based on something richer that involves development and exchanges of students and business people. And so we want to encourage that kind of work, as well,’ he said.



‘And we helped to lead an effort that raised $5 billion of development assistance for Pakistan at a donors’ conference in Japan, hundreds of millions of dollars that we’re trying to provide to support internally displaced people. That’s the kind of strategy that I think will bring our countries closer together. And having known the people of Pakistan, I am convinced that the future between our two countries can be very, very bright.’



‘You cannot escape cricket while living with Pakistanis. Did they leave a cricket bat with you?’



‘You know, I have to say that I have tried to get up to bat a couple of times, but I’ve been terrible. So I’m an admirer of great cricket players, but make no claims in terms of my own skills,’ said Mr Obama, breaking into a broad smile.



DawnNews will telecast the full interview at 12 noon today (Sunday) and repeat it at 14:30, 16:30 and 18:30.
 
Some introspection

Thursday, June 25, 2009
Richie Matif

There is a strand of opinion in the Pakistani media whose knee-jerk response to any adverse event in the country is to blame the US. This is a visceral response of a lazy mind which sees conspiracy where none may exist. It is the kind of thinking that allows some commentators to make the facile argument that for example drone attacks (a strategy criticised by many US policy experts themselves) are the reason the religious fanatics exist and are bent upon killing their fellow citizens. This line of argument that foreign interference is the source of all Pakistan's ills is dangerous because it removes the need for introspection and represents a mythical burying-of-the-head-in-the-sand response of the ostrich, thus offering nothing towards a solution to the problem.

There is another, legitimate, argument that meddling by others has shaped the history of Pakistan in such a way that it finds itself at a despairing and unhappy stage. This strand of argument was presented in an article, published in a US newspaper, by the president who had some harsh words to say with regard to past US foreign policy towards Pakistan. The article, a plea for economic aid and political support for democracy in Pakistan from the 'west', not only had most historical analysis right but also had the realism that raking over history is not enough: what's done is done. Mr Zardari is right to demand that others must help to clean up a mess for which there are many to blame. One hopes that the 'west' pays heed to Mr Zardari's powerful argument that if religious fanaticism is not defeated in Pakistan, both militarily and politically, it could become a global threat.

In the article, Mr Zardari was particularly critical of the US empowering dictatorship of Ziaul Haque which in turn supported the 'jihadis', whose ideological offspring are now employing the same scorched earth tactics to wreak havoc across Pakistan. But missing from the president's analysis was a level of national introspection. That US governments have aided dictatorial Pakistani regimes may be true, but the misconception that western governments have aided installation of military dictatorships in Pakistan, although common, appears historically inaccurate. For example, General Zia usurped power in July 1977, a full two and a half years before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and another year and a half before serious US engagement in the proxy war against the Soviet Union (by the 'mujahideen' through military assistance to Zia's brutal regime).

The same is true for Gen Musharraf's usurpation of power in Oct 1999, nearly two years before Sept 11, 2001, and subsequent US military support for the Musharraf regime. The US could reasonably claim to have followed its national interest in dealing with whoever they found at the helm both in 1979 and 2001.

The question is this: in the 60 years of her existence and at the time of two major geo-political events (in 1979 and 2001), that have reverberated through her polity for three decades, who was responsible for deciding Pakistan's foreign policy? We know the answer to this question; on both occasions it was an unelected and unrepresentative dictatorship happy to extend its grip on power with foreign help.

In looking forward, the president, and the nation, may wish to indulge in a little introspection. But most importantly introspection is required by the institution that historically has failed to recognise that in its, perhaps, sincere attempts to save the proverbial village, it has significantly contributed towards its (the village's) systematic destruction. Mr Zardari is right that democracy is the only viable system for the Pakistan's long-term salvation, but democracy requires strong, transparent and accountable institutions and action by the president himself to execute PPP manifesto promises, implement the Charter of Democracy and make parliament sovereign without interference from the presidency.
 

Associated Press Writer Jim Abrams

WASHINGTON – The Senate voted Wednesday to triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan in hopes of bolstering economic and political stability there and to help change the negative attitudes of many Pakistanis toward America.

The bill approves $1.5 billion a year over five years in humanitarian and economic aid to Pakistan. It also recommends a second five-year, $7.5 billion aid program conditioned on improvements in the political and economic climate in Pakistan.

The measure now goes to negotiations with the House, which passed a similar foreign aid bill earlier this month.

It passed the Senate by voice vote without debate. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., said the bill was vital both to Pakistan's 175 million people and to U.S. national security.

"Pakistan is facing a critical moment, and today the Senate has made a clear, bipartisan commitment to replace an atmosphere of mutual distrust and lack of accountability with a broad-based, durable commitment to Pakistan and its people," said Kerry, who sponsored the bill with the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Dick Lugar of Indiana.

The Senate bill does not link military and nonmilitary aid, focusing on fostering democratic governance and economic development. It does condition grant assistance for military financing, from 2010, and military sales, from 2012, on the secretary of state certifying that Pakistan is making real efforts to prevent al-Qaida and the Taliban from operating from, or taking sanctuary in, the country.

The secretary of state also must provide Congress with a strategy report with progress benchmarks and submit semiannual reports on the impact of U.S. assistance.

The Obama administration has chafed at conditioning aid — the House bill also links military aid to the determination that Pakistan is cooperating in dismantling nuclear weapons supply networks — but has pushed for a more strategic, long-term relationship with the Asian nation. President Barack Obama was a co-sponsor of the Kerry-Lugar bill when he was in the Senate and last March urged Congress to pass it.

"I think that it is fair to say that our policy toward Pakistan over the last 30 years has been incoherent. I don't know any other word to use," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at a news conference last month.

The House bill, in addition to approving $1.5 billion a year in nonmilitary aid, authorizes $400 million in 2010 for security assistance and $300 million in 2010 for a State Department Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund. Current military assistance is about $300 million a year. Its chief sponsor is Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, D-Calif.

The House measure also incorporates a separate bill, sponsored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., that sets up economic zones from which Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan along the Afghan border can sell goods to the United States duty-free.
 
Pakistan govt. may become dangerously addicted to foreign aid...
They sould work out how to generate income rather than appeal for aid...
 
India needn't worry about US aid to Pak: Blake

The United States says India need not be concerned about its increased assistance to Pakistan.

It has sought to allay apprehensions that Islamabad may use the aid to strengthen its military against India.

"As you know, the new focus in terms of our relationship with Pakistan is to dramatically increase economic assistance to Pakistan to help that country overcome some of its economic challenges and to extend the writ of the government to other parts of Pakistan," Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Robert Blake said.

"And all of those things should be very much in India's interest as well," he said adding, "So I think, people of India should support and agree with what we are trying to do."

On concerns about the use of American aid by Pakistan to build up the military against India, Blake said Islamabad "is increasingly focussed on dealing with the extremist problems in its own country."

Terming militancy-hit Pakistan and Afghanistan as "a strategic priority" for the US, he said it intends to consult India "very closely" on meeting its goals in the region.

"As you say, Afghanistan and Pakistan is a strategic priority. But I do not want to imply that that would come at the expense of India. India would continue to be also a strategic priority for the US. And I think that will come out very clearly during Secretary (of State Hillary) Clinton's visit" to New Delhi this month, he said.
 
"As you say, Afghanistan and Pakistan is a strategic priority. But I do not want to imply that that would come at the expense of India. India would continue to be also a strategic priority for the US. And I think that will come out very clearly during Secretary (of State Hillary) Clinton's visit" to New Delhi this month, he said.

Nothing new, same can be said about Pakistan as well.

US can't manage to improve relationships with India at the cost of Pakistan either.

An example is the reduction of staff and number of Indian consulates in Afghanistan.

US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns, the highest ranking US official to visit India after the recent elections, asked his interlocutors to trim India’s consulate in Jalalabad, which Pakistan sees as a distraction in the military campaign against Muslim extremists on the Afghan border.


Please see the link below:

DAWN.COM | World | US wants India to trim Jalalabad mission
 
US should work to build trust partnership with Pakistan: experts

* Former State Dept official says Washington needs to do more to resolve Kashmir dispute

WASHINGTON: Billing Pakistan’s ability to overcome multiple challenges as critical to regional stability, top experts have said anti-terrorism success in South Asia depends on US fostering a trusting partnership with Islamabad in the years ahead.

Lisa Curtis, a former State Department adviser on South Asia and a senior fellow at Washington’s conservative Heritage Foundation, praised Islamabad's recent anti-militancy drive and urged Washington to support economic development in the country. Testifying before a Congressional panel, Curtis favoured Islamabad getting a greater role in Afghanistan’s reconstruction and addressing Pakistan’s concerns vis-à-vis India. For its part, she added, Pakistan should make sustained efforts to ensure that no militants were able to use its soil for attacks in other countries.

“Containing the global terrorist threat in South Asia will depend largely on the ability of the US to forge a trusting and cooperative partnership with Pakistan over the next several years,” she said.

“The future direction of the region, including the outcome of the war in Afghanistan, pivots on Pakistan's ability to overcome multiple socio-economic challenges as well as its willingness to fight terrorism in all its forms within its own borders,” Curtis added.

Kashmir dispute: Curtis supported the US facilitating Pakistan-India rapprochement and progress towards settlement of the Kashmir dispute but added the US should tread carefully given the long history of animosity between the two South Asian nuclear powers. Pakistan, she said, was at a critical juncture and the Obama administration was demonstrating a willingness to invest significant resources into helping the country develop into a prosperous, peaceful, and thriving state.

app
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom