US legislation seeks ban on assistance to Pakistan
- Thread starter Cheetah786
- Start date
US know without Pakistan manning the west border (somewhat), situation will be dire and very unfavorable to NATO not likes it's favorable in the first place. They can't afford to loose Pakistan right now, Just like to Iran they have to involve Russia in to talks and China., it's all diplo but lets just see what happens.
Plus, even if they ban weapons we can go for Rafale France is dying to make sales on them that route is open to us aswell as Griphen for high-tech fighters though I prefer Rafales. Anti-tank missiles Pakistan makes then plus we can go for france weapons aswell.
In all honestly I have been aganist F-16s we finally moved away from Americans and Pakistan is going back..., the less we buy from America the better we can't trust them during war time we have seen it in the past.
Plus, even if they ban weapons we can go for Rafale France is dying to make sales on them that route is open to us aswell as Griphen for high-tech fighters though I prefer Rafales. Anti-tank missiles Pakistan makes then plus we can go for france weapons aswell.
In all honestly I have been aganist F-16s we finally moved away from Americans and Pakistan is going back..., the less we buy from America the better we can't trust them during war time we have seen it in the past.
genmirajborgza786
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,303
- Reaction score
- 20
- Country
- Location
we should cancell the f-16 deal right way once bitten twice shy if france or sewden is willing to sale it to us we should strike a deal then & there.
A.Rahman
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 4,728
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Cheetah786
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2006
- Messages
- 9,002
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
WASHINGTON, Jan 25: Pakistanââ¬â¢s nuclear and missile programmes are not consistent with its friendship with the United States, says a proposed US legislation (partly reported in Thursdayââ¬â¢s Dawn), which was recently adopted by the House of Representatives.
Diplomatic circles in Washington feel that the proposed law, now before the US Senate, can lead to new controversies over Pakistanââ¬â¢s nuclear programme.
Some US lawmakers had recently demanded a congressional inquiry into the activities of the so-called A. Q. Khan network of proliferators.
Most of these lawmakers were from the Democratic Party, which now controls both chambers of the Congress.
Pakistan cooperated with the United States and other Western powers in unearthing the network on Washingtonââ¬â¢s assurance that if it helped undo the ring, Islamabad will not be blamed for the activities of an individual.
But the Implementation of 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act reopens the question of Pakistanââ¬â¢s nuclear and missile programmes in a manner that is bound to worry Islamabad.
In a sub-section titled `Findingââ¬â¢, the proposed act notes: ââ¬ÅCongress finds that Pakistan's maintenance of a network for the proliferation of nuclear and missile technologies would be inconsistent with Pakistan being considered an ally of the United States.ââ¬Â
Sub-section 2, titled `Sense of Congressââ¬â¢, adds: ââ¬ÅIt is the sense of Congress that the national security interest of the United States will be best served if the United States develops and implements a long-term strategy to improve the United States relationship with Pakistan and works with the Government of Pakistan to stop nuclear proliferation.ââ¬Â
Pakistani diplomats in Washington, however, point out that the proposed law is non-binding and will not lead to a suspension of US military assistance to Pakistan.
They also hope that the Senate version of the proposed law will be more `friendlyââ¬â¢ and will consider Pakistanââ¬â¢s interests as well.
Pakistanââ¬â¢s ambassador Mahmud Ali Durrani has already been meeting senior US senators to convey Islamabadââ¬â¢s views on the issue.
GENERAL ELECTION: Another provision of the proposed law is more worrying for the government than the country. It binds the extension of waivers from the suggested prohibitions on US military assistance to the conduct of the general election in Pakistan.
The portion dealing with the prohibitions calls for stopping US military assistance to Pakistan if Islamabad fails to halt the resurgence of Taliban inside its territory.
The US president, however, may waive the limitation on assistance for a fiscal year if he determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that it is important to the national security interest of the United States to do so.
But the section on democracy adds a condition to this waiver as well. The section says: ââ¬ÅIt is the sense of Congress that determinations to provide extensions of waivers of foreign assistance prohibitions with respect to Pakistan ââ¬Â¦ for fiscal years ââ¬Â¦ should be informed by the pace of democratic reform, extension of the rule of law, and the conduct of the parliamentary elections currently scheduled for 2007 in Pakistan.ââ¬Â
Pakistani diplomats feel that while the Senate may soften some aspects of this bill, the provision for certification will remain. Every time the US president sends to Congress a request for providing military assistance to Pakistan, he will have to certify that Islamabad is doing its part in combating the Taliban and restoring democracy.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/01/26/top2.htm
Diplomatic circles in Washington feel that the proposed law, now before the US Senate, can lead to new controversies over Pakistanââ¬â¢s nuclear programme.
Some US lawmakers had recently demanded a congressional inquiry into the activities of the so-called A. Q. Khan network of proliferators.
Most of these lawmakers were from the Democratic Party, which now controls both chambers of the Congress.
Pakistan cooperated with the United States and other Western powers in unearthing the network on Washingtonââ¬â¢s assurance that if it helped undo the ring, Islamabad will not be blamed for the activities of an individual.
But the Implementation of 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act reopens the question of Pakistanââ¬â¢s nuclear and missile programmes in a manner that is bound to worry Islamabad.
In a sub-section titled `Findingââ¬â¢, the proposed act notes: ââ¬ÅCongress finds that Pakistan's maintenance of a network for the proliferation of nuclear and missile technologies would be inconsistent with Pakistan being considered an ally of the United States.ââ¬Â
Sub-section 2, titled `Sense of Congressââ¬â¢, adds: ââ¬ÅIt is the sense of Congress that the national security interest of the United States will be best served if the United States develops and implements a long-term strategy to improve the United States relationship with Pakistan and works with the Government of Pakistan to stop nuclear proliferation.ââ¬Â
Pakistani diplomats in Washington, however, point out that the proposed law is non-binding and will not lead to a suspension of US military assistance to Pakistan.
They also hope that the Senate version of the proposed law will be more `friendlyââ¬â¢ and will consider Pakistanââ¬â¢s interests as well.
Pakistanââ¬â¢s ambassador Mahmud Ali Durrani has already been meeting senior US senators to convey Islamabadââ¬â¢s views on the issue.
GENERAL ELECTION: Another provision of the proposed law is more worrying for the government than the country. It binds the extension of waivers from the suggested prohibitions on US military assistance to the conduct of the general election in Pakistan.
The portion dealing with the prohibitions calls for stopping US military assistance to Pakistan if Islamabad fails to halt the resurgence of Taliban inside its territory.
The US president, however, may waive the limitation on assistance for a fiscal year if he determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that it is important to the national security interest of the United States to do so.
But the section on democracy adds a condition to this waiver as well. The section says: ââ¬ÅIt is the sense of Congress that determinations to provide extensions of waivers of foreign assistance prohibitions with respect to Pakistan ââ¬Â¦ for fiscal years ââ¬Â¦ should be informed by the pace of democratic reform, extension of the rule of law, and the conduct of the parliamentary elections currently scheduled for 2007 in Pakistan.ââ¬Â
Pakistani diplomats feel that while the Senate may soften some aspects of this bill, the provision for certification will remain. Every time the US president sends to Congress a request for providing military assistance to Pakistan, he will have to certify that Islamabad is doing its part in combating the Taliban and restoring democracy.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/01/26/top2.htm
Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
Let the legislation get passed first, then we'l discuss its implications. I highly doubt such a bill would get through.
Daily Times - Site Edition Friday, January 26, 2007
New US legislation no threat to Musharraf
* Bill unlikely to pressure govt on democracy
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: Pakistan alone is not the object of the bill passed by the House of Representative this week, joined as it is by Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Nor does it pose a threat to Musharrafââ¬â¢s rule.
The bill, though non-binding, does indicate that there is a new wind blowing across Washington. However, no immediate change is to be expected and it will be ââ¬Åbusiness as usualââ¬Â between Washington and Islamabad for some time at least. The bill is not likely to lead to the intensification of any pressure from here on the Musharraf government to usher in full democracy.
The legislation, when it becomes law, will require the president to report to the appropriate congressional committees a long-term US strategy to engage with Pakistan to address the issues of terrorism effectively. The new provisions are part of the Implementation of 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act 2007 aimed at revamping the US national security and foreign policy apparatus to address post-9/11 challenges.
The bill identifies what it calls ââ¬Åcritical issuesââ¬Â that need immediate action. These issues include: curbing the proliferation of nuclear technology; combating poverty and corruption; building effective institutions; promoting democracy and the rule of law; addressing continued presence of Taliban and other violent extremists; maintaining the authority of the Pakistani government across its territory; securing Pakistanââ¬â¢s borders to prevent terroristsââ¬â¢ movement; and effectively dealing with ââ¬ÅIslamic terrorismââ¬Â.
The law would require the administration to work with Pakistan to combat terrorism, especially in the Frontier province, and to end the use of Pakistan as a safe haven for forces associated with the Taliban. Islamabad will be expected to demonstrate a commitment to building a moderate, democratic state, including significant steps towards free and fair parliamentary elections in 2007. The US will also be expected to help resolve the dispute between Pakistan and India over the ââ¬Ådisputed territory of Kashmirââ¬Â.
New US legislation no threat to Musharraf
* Bill unlikely to pressure govt on democracy
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: Pakistan alone is not the object of the bill passed by the House of Representative this week, joined as it is by Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Nor does it pose a threat to Musharrafââ¬â¢s rule.
The bill, though non-binding, does indicate that there is a new wind blowing across Washington. However, no immediate change is to be expected and it will be ââ¬Åbusiness as usualââ¬Â between Washington and Islamabad for some time at least. The bill is not likely to lead to the intensification of any pressure from here on the Musharraf government to usher in full democracy.
The legislation, when it becomes law, will require the president to report to the appropriate congressional committees a long-term US strategy to engage with Pakistan to address the issues of terrorism effectively. The new provisions are part of the Implementation of 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act 2007 aimed at revamping the US national security and foreign policy apparatus to address post-9/11 challenges.
The bill identifies what it calls ââ¬Åcritical issuesââ¬Â that need immediate action. These issues include: curbing the proliferation of nuclear technology; combating poverty and corruption; building effective institutions; promoting democracy and the rule of law; addressing continued presence of Taliban and other violent extremists; maintaining the authority of the Pakistani government across its territory; securing Pakistanââ¬â¢s borders to prevent terroristsââ¬â¢ movement; and effectively dealing with ââ¬ÅIslamic terrorismââ¬Â.
The law would require the administration to work with Pakistan to combat terrorism, especially in the Frontier province, and to end the use of Pakistan as a safe haven for forces associated with the Taliban. Islamabad will be expected to demonstrate a commitment to building a moderate, democratic state, including significant steps towards free and fair parliamentary elections in 2007. The US will also be expected to help resolve the dispute between Pakistan and India over the ââ¬Ådisputed territory of Kashmirââ¬Â.
It may be business as usual but I remain sceptic when it comes to dealing with the USA.
Washington is already blaiming Iran and Syria for their involvement in Iraq as excuse for Bushes failures. If US fails Afghanistan surely we'll get the blame.
What if the F-16's get sanctioned again?
Washington is already blaiming Iran and Syria for their involvement in Iraq as excuse for Bushes failures. If US fails Afghanistan surely we'll get the blame.
What if the F-16's get sanctioned again?
HAIDER
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 21, 2006
- Messages
- 33,771
- Reaction score
- 14
- Country
- Location
Well pakistan never show any interest in F16, when it cut down the numbers. But some independent sources speculate, giving number of F16 to pakistan is measure to subotage JF17 project. We all know jf17 is backbone and inshallah Pak will be producing this plane soon.
But as far as sanction by US, those times are gone, when US punish Pak like cage monkey. Now US know PAK armed forces love US armory, but alway carry lots of reservation against consistent US supplies of parts.
Cuz when US awarded Pak non nato ally, First question was in US media, is it long term partnership or just another seasonal ally.
Its famous saying in Pakistan circles for US policy makers " a friend in need a friend i don't need".
But as far as sanction by US, those times are gone, when US punish Pak like cage monkey. Now US know PAK armed forces love US armory, but alway carry lots of reservation against consistent US supplies of parts.
Cuz when US awarded Pak non nato ally, First question was in US media, is it long term partnership or just another seasonal ally.
Its famous saying in Pakistan circles for US policy makers " a friend in need a friend i don't need".
New US legislation may revive nuclear proliferation row
By Anwar Iqbal
WASHINGTON, Jan 25: Pakistanââ¬â¢s nuclear and missile programmes are not consistent with its friendship with the United States, says a proposed US legislation (partly reported in Thursdayââ¬â¢s Dawn), which was recently adopted by the House of Representatives.
Diplomatic circles in Washington feel that the proposed law, now before the US Senate, can lead to new controversies over Pakistanââ¬â¢s nuclear programme.
Some US lawmakers had recently demanded a congressional inquiry into the activities of the so-called A. Q. Khan network of proliferators.
Most of these lawmakers were from the Democratic Party, which now controls both chambers of the Congress.
Pakistan cooperated with the United States and other Western powers in unearthing the network on Washingtonââ¬â¢s assurance that if it helped undo the ring, Islamabad will not be blamed for the activities of an individual.
But the Implementation of 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act reopens the question of Pakistanââ¬â¢s nuclear and missile programmes in a manner that is bound to worry Islamabad.
In a sub-section titled `Findingââ¬â¢, the proposed act notes: ââ¬ÅCongress finds that Pakistan's maintenance of a network for the proliferation of nuclear and missile technologies would be inconsistent with Pakistan being considered an ally of the United States.ââ¬Â
Sub-section 2, titled `Sense of Congressââ¬â¢, adds: ââ¬ÅIt is the sense of Congress that the national security interest of the United States will be best served if the United States develops and implements a long-term strategy to improve the United States relationship with Pakistan and works with the Government of Pakistan to stop nuclear proliferation.ââ¬Â
Pakistani diplomats in Washington, however, point out that the proposed law is non-binding and will not lead to a suspension of US military assistance to Pakistan.
They also hope that the Senate version of the proposed law will be more `friendlyââ¬â¢ and will consider Pakistanââ¬â¢s interests as well.
Pakistanââ¬â¢s ambassador Mahmud Ali Durrani has already been meeting senior US senators to convey Islamabadââ¬â¢s views on the issue.
GENERAL ELECTION: Another provision of the proposed law is more worrying for the government than the country. It binds the extension of waivers from the suggested prohibitions on US military assistance to the conduct of the general election in Pakistan.
The portion dealing with the prohibitions calls for stopping US military assistance to Pakistan if Islamabad fails to halt the resurgence of Taliban inside its territory.
The US president, however, may waive the limitation on assistance for a fiscal year if he determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that it is important to the national security interest of the United States to do so.
But the section on democracy adds a condition to this waiver as well. The section says: ââ¬ÅIt is the sense of Congress that determinations to provide extensions of waivers of foreign assistance prohibitions with respect to Pakistan ââ¬Â¦ for fiscal years ââ¬Â¦ should be informed by the pace of democratic reform, extension of the rule of law, and the conduct of the parliamentary elections currently scheduled for 2007 in Pakistan.ââ¬Â
Pakistani diplomats feel that while the Senate may soften some aspects of this bill, the provision for certification will remain. Every time the US president sends to Congress a request for providing military assistance to Pakistan, he will have to certify that Islamabad is doing its part in combating the Taliban and restoring democracy.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/01/26/top2.htm
By Anwar Iqbal
WASHINGTON, Jan 25: Pakistanââ¬â¢s nuclear and missile programmes are not consistent with its friendship with the United States, says a proposed US legislation (partly reported in Thursdayââ¬â¢s Dawn), which was recently adopted by the House of Representatives.
Diplomatic circles in Washington feel that the proposed law, now before the US Senate, can lead to new controversies over Pakistanââ¬â¢s nuclear programme.
Some US lawmakers had recently demanded a congressional inquiry into the activities of the so-called A. Q. Khan network of proliferators.
Most of these lawmakers were from the Democratic Party, which now controls both chambers of the Congress.
Pakistan cooperated with the United States and other Western powers in unearthing the network on Washingtonââ¬â¢s assurance that if it helped undo the ring, Islamabad will not be blamed for the activities of an individual.
But the Implementation of 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act reopens the question of Pakistanââ¬â¢s nuclear and missile programmes in a manner that is bound to worry Islamabad.
In a sub-section titled `Findingââ¬â¢, the proposed act notes: ââ¬ÅCongress finds that Pakistan's maintenance of a network for the proliferation of nuclear and missile technologies would be inconsistent with Pakistan being considered an ally of the United States.ââ¬Â
Sub-section 2, titled `Sense of Congressââ¬â¢, adds: ââ¬ÅIt is the sense of Congress that the national security interest of the United States will be best served if the United States develops and implements a long-term strategy to improve the United States relationship with Pakistan and works with the Government of Pakistan to stop nuclear proliferation.ââ¬Â
Pakistani diplomats in Washington, however, point out that the proposed law is non-binding and will not lead to a suspension of US military assistance to Pakistan.
They also hope that the Senate version of the proposed law will be more `friendlyââ¬â¢ and will consider Pakistanââ¬â¢s interests as well.
Pakistanââ¬â¢s ambassador Mahmud Ali Durrani has already been meeting senior US senators to convey Islamabadââ¬â¢s views on the issue.
GENERAL ELECTION: Another provision of the proposed law is more worrying for the government than the country. It binds the extension of waivers from the suggested prohibitions on US military assistance to the conduct of the general election in Pakistan.
The portion dealing with the prohibitions calls for stopping US military assistance to Pakistan if Islamabad fails to halt the resurgence of Taliban inside its territory.
The US president, however, may waive the limitation on assistance for a fiscal year if he determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that it is important to the national security interest of the United States to do so.
But the section on democracy adds a condition to this waiver as well. The section says: ââ¬ÅIt is the sense of Congress that determinations to provide extensions of waivers of foreign assistance prohibitions with respect to Pakistan ââ¬Â¦ for fiscal years ââ¬Â¦ should be informed by the pace of democratic reform, extension of the rule of law, and the conduct of the parliamentary elections currently scheduled for 2007 in Pakistan.ââ¬Â
Pakistani diplomats feel that while the Senate may soften some aspects of this bill, the provision for certification will remain. Every time the US president sends to Congress a request for providing military assistance to Pakistan, he will have to certify that Islamabad is doing its part in combating the Taliban and restoring democracy.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/01/26/top2.htm
For as long as US and ISAF are in Afghanistan, Pakistan is not getting any sanctions put on. This is the reality of the situation. We have more leverage on the situation than most people understand. US and NATO cannot win without Pakistan's support. The policy makers on the top know that and there is nothing that can change the reality of that assesment.
I agree, US can't afford to alianate Pakistan aslong as she's involved in Afghanistan but how long will it take to get the job done?
It took almost eight years for the Sovjets to realise that Afghanistan cannot be ruled by foreign forces nor will it surrender to any. US Forces have completed five years and 'pushed it into the stone age', another five years won't make any difference, Afgahanistan is a lost case and soon Washington will realise that.
Its in our benefit that US stays in Afghanistan for a long time to come.
Similar threads
