US legislation seeks ban on assistance to Pakistan

[Neo]

A new Pressler law?

BY linking aid to Pakistan to an annual presidential certificate, the new bill in the US Senate reminds one of the Pressler Amendment. Named after Senator Larry Pressler, the 1985 amendment to the foreign aid act made all US aid to Pakistan dependent subject to a certificate from the president, who was asked to certify that Islamabad was not engaged in a nuclear programme for military purposes. So long as the US-armed, US-funded mujahideen battled the Soviets in Afghanistan, the presidents continued to issue the desired certificate every year. However, once the Soviets pulled out, all aid to Pakistan, including the delivery of the F-16s Pakistan had already paid for, froze because President Bush Sr stopped certification in October 1990. The new bill, already passed by the House of Representatives, is not — like the Pressler Amendment — Pakistan-specific; instead, it also includes Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. With Iraq in a complete mess and little possibility of a victory in Afghanistan, the Democratic-dominated Congress seems to be rebuking President George Bush for the utter failure of his Middle East policy. We are, however, concerned with the bill’s implications for Pakistan should it finally get through the Senate and have the president’s assent.


Bracketing Pakistan with Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan is anomalous and shows the danger of generalisation in a situation that calls for a cool-headed study of the political realities in the countries concerned. Afghanistan has virtually no government, its entire security responsibility devolving on foreign forces. Saudi Arabia is a monarchy where even the facade of democracy does not exist. Pakistan, in spite of the aberration of its army chief also being the head of state, has more than mere symbols of democracy. Political parties are relatively free to operate, within certain limits the press is free — thanks to the late Mohammad Khan Junejo — and the electronic media enjoys a degree of freedom that even foreign diplomats in Pakistan compare favourably with that in all established democracies. The problem in Pakistan lies with the government’s failure to pursue the war on terror as a national commitment rather than as something that is the military’s sole prerogative. Thus, the absence of a broad national consensus on the fundamentals of foreign policy and the war on terror, enable aid-givers to apply pressures when they like.

Examined closely, the draft bill is not a disaster, for it recognises Pakistan “as an important partner” in the war on terror and grants the president the powers to forge a “strategic partnership” with Islamabad provided he certifies each year that Pakistan is doing all it can to prevent the Taliban from operating in this country. Evidently, Pakistan’s view fails to get across to Congressmen, which is a failure of our diplomacy. Our security forces have suffered a minimum of 700 dead, prompting the US Homeland Security Department to acknowledge that the war on terror has been “costly” for Pakistan. Yet, as Ambassador Mahmoud Ali Durrani put it, there is nothing more that Islamabad can do for “we are already standing on our head”. Pakistan should remain unruffled by such pressure tactics. It must be guided by its own interests which cannot be secured by reliance on brute force alone. If the Bush administration had not relied entirely on force, it would not have had 150,000 American troops trapped in Iraq with over 3,000 dead. The basic challenge for the Musharraf government is to move towards democracy and avoid the mistake of having the existing assemblies re-elect President Musharraf for another term.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/01/26/ed.htm#1

 

[HAIDER]

Nodoubt he should avoid political mistakes much possible, not even try to re-elect from existing assembly. May be idea backup by US, cuz interest involve . But will be worst outcome inside Pakistan, a bitter reaction from political parties. Should be no gap between armed forces and politcal system of country.

 

[Neo]

January 27, 2007

Another US bill may seek surrender of Dr Khan

By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, Jan 26: An anti-proliferation bill, passed recently by the US House of Representatives, authorises the administration to ask Pakistan to surrender Dr A.Q. Khan to US authorities for investigation.

The proposed law, called the Nuclear Black Market Counter-Terrorism Act, would require US president to identify countries that cooperated with the “Khan network of proliferators” and take punitive action against them.

The bill was adopted earlier this month along with another which would require President Bush to certify that Pakistan is doing all it can to counter the Taliban and Al Qaeda before further financial aid is released to the country's military.

Both bills have already passed the House and now await the Senate’s approval. The bill on nuclear proliferation would require the US president to submit a report, no later than 90 days after its enactment, to the appropriate congressional committees that:

— “Identifies any country in which manufacturing, brokering, shipment, trans-shipment, or other activity occurred in connection with the transactions of the nuclear proliferation network that supplied Libya, Iran, North Korea, and possibly other countries or entities, and;

— “Identifies any country in which manufacturing, brokering, shipment, trans-shipment, or other activity occurred for the purpose of supplying nuclear technology, equipment, or material to another country or foreign person that could, in the president's judgment, contribute to the development, manufacture, or acquisition, of a nuclear explosive device by a country or foreign person of concern to the United States.”

“This is a very serious development,” said Brig Naeem Salik, a visiting fellow at Washington’s Brookings Institution who was the custodian of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal after the discovery of the “Khan network of nuclear proliferators”.

“It is another Pressler in the making,” said Brig Salik while referring to the 1985 Pressler Amendment that banned military assistance to Pakistan for having a nuclear weapons programme.

Another provision of the proposed law, if enacted, can force Pakistan to surrender Dr A.Q. Khan to US authorities for investigation. Under this provision, the US president shall send a report to the appropriate congressional committees which shall include a “description of the extent to which a country is fully cooperating” with the United States in its efforts to eliminate the nuclear proliferation network or in stopping proliferation activities.

“The president shall base the determination regarding a country's cooperation with the United States in part on the degree to which the country has satisfied US requests for assistance and information, including whether the United States has asked and been granted direct investigatory access to key persons involved in the nuclear proliferation network or activities.”

Brig Salik noted that the reference to Libya, Iran and North Korea and the demand for access to “key persons” involved can have far-reaching consequences for Pakistan. “We need to look at it very carefully and respond through a coordinated, proactive and well thought out strategy,” he said.

“We have to weigh our options carefully and plan ahead lest we again be caught by surprise like the Pressler in the 1990s.”

The proposed law suggests that US foreign assistance should only be provided to countries that:— Are not cooperating with any non-nuclear-weapon state or any foreign group or individual who may be engaged in, planning, or assisting any international “terrorist group” in the development of a nuclear explosive device or its means of delivery and are taking all necessary measures to prevent their nationals and other persons and entities subject to their jurisdiction from participating in such cooperation, and;

— Are fully and completely cooperating with the United States in its efforts to eliminate nuclear black-market networks or activities.

The US president would also be required to instruct all agencies of the US government to “make every effort in their interactions with foreign government and business officials to persuade foreign governments and relevant corporations not to engage in any business transaction with a foreign person sanctioned” under this law.A section titled “findings” notes that:

— Foreign persons and corporations engaging in nuclear black-market activities are motivated by reasons of commercial gain and profit;

— Sanctions targeted solely against the business interests of the sanctioned person or business concern may be unsuccessful in halting these proliferation activities;

— To dissuade corporations from allowing their associated commercial entities or persons from engaging in proliferation black-market activities, they must also be made to suffer financial loss and commercial disadvantage, and parent and subsidiary commercial enterprises must be held responsible for the proliferation activities of their associated entities;

— If a corporation perceives that the US government will do everything possible to make its commercial activity difficult around the world, then that corporation has a powerful commercial incentive to prevent any further proliferation activity by its associated entities;

— Therefore, the US government should seek to increase the risk of commercial loss for associated corporate entities for the proliferation actions of their subsidiaries.

The proposed law describes the terms “persons” and “corporations” in a wider sense, which includes “any governmental entity, or subsidiary, subunit, or parent entity.”

In the case of a country where it may be impossible to identify a specific governmental entity, the terms will cover “all activities of that government relating to the development or production of any nuclear equipment or technology.”

http://www.dawn.com/2007/01/27/top5.htm

 

[Munir]

I think it is just another brick in the wall around Pakistan. Giving goodies like F16 and P3 but directly adding manipulation.

 

[Neo]

Monday, January 29, 2007

Obama’s Muslim link being used to discredit him

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: Attempts by the American far right to do down presidential hopeful Senator Barak Obama as an undeclared Muslim or a man with family Muslim links have been castigated in an editorial appearing in the Washington Post on Sunday.

The newspaper writes under the heading ‘Sticks, Stones and Mr Obama’ that “misleading aspersions” continue to be cast about the senator’s background, which only makes the perpetrators look bad. Noting that it has become a “fad” among conservatives to refer to the junior senator from Illinois by his full name: Barack Hussein Obama, the Post observes that “this would be merely juvenile if it weren’t so contemptible”.

Republican lobbyist Ed Rogers, the editorial notes, was one of the early adopters of this “sleazy tactic,” when he said, “Count me down as somebody who underestimates Barack Hussein Obama.” Right-wing talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, referring to Obama’s oversized ears, called him “Barack Hussein Odumbo.” Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council issued an e-mail alert that said: “Joining an already glutted field of hopefuls, Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-Ill) announced his candidacy for the 2008 Democratic nomination yesterday.”

Insight magazine, the Post, pointed out, managed to “further degrade the public discourse” with a scurrilous report alleging that Obama, as a child in Indonesia, attended a radical Islamic madrassa.

The fact is that while Obama did attend a public school in Jakarta that was predominantly Muslim, given that Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim country, but it was not a madrassa. The Insight piece was “eagerly touted” by Fox News Network. Without bothering to check the story, the network “cravenly” attributed the false report to “Hillary Clinton’s camp,” citing unnamed “sources close to the background check” that the New York senator supposedly conducted into Obama.

Writes the Post, “When the madrassa story was debunked by CNN and the Associated Press, Insight didn’t even have the decency to slink away. ‘The media uproar over our reporting reveals a media establishment choosing not to ask the tough questions about Obama’s Muslim past: If he was raised in a secular household (as he claims), why does he have - or retain - Muslim names, Barack and Hussein?’ the magazine asked in a posting on its website. ‘Were his father and stepfather as secular as he says? What is the exact nature of Obama’s current religious affiliation and what are the beliefs and teachings of his current church in Chicago, the Trinity United Church of Christ’?”

Such “slimers” seem to think, says the editorial, that such name-calling and Muslim-baiting can score points with the American people. On the contrary, Obama’s multicultural background (his father was Kenyan, and he spent several years living in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather) ought to be viewed as a plus. “A president with an understanding of Islam and the developing world would be welcomed by those who too often feel misunderstood and slighted by the United States. Mr Obama has never tried to hide his past or his family name: he has written about being educated at a predominantly Muslim school. His father, a non-practising Muslim, was Barack Hussein Obama Sr. His grandmother is Sara Hussein Obama. The senator, however, does not use his middle name. Those who take pains to insert it when referring to him are trying, none too subtly, to stir up scary images of menacing terrorists and evil dictators. They embarrass only themselves,” the Post concluded.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\01\29\story_29-1-2007_pg7_21

 

[Janbaz]

Anti-Pak bill to be resisted

Newsdesk
LAHORE - US ambassador to Pakistan Ryan C. Crocker has said that the bill forwarded by the Democrats in the US Congress will not be allowed to become Pressler Amendment.
He said this while talking to The Nation at a dinner hosted by the outgoing Chinese envoy.
Crocker said those who were terming the recent bill as another Pressler Amendment were at wrong. He said the bill had yet to undergo several phases before becoming law. The American ambassador said the US administration will resist the anti-Pakistan legislation in Senate.
When asked that there prevailed unrest in Pakistan over the said legislation by Democrats seeking a halt to military aid to Pakistan, he replied that there was nothing to worry about.
He said Pelosi’s visit to Pakistan did not mean to send any strong message because US and US Congress considered Pakistan a friend and partner.
“Visit of Pelosi led delegation implied the importance of Pakistan”, he added.

The Nation.
http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/jan-2007/30/index15.php.

 

[Neo]

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Pakistan lobbying to soften US Senate bill

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: Pakistan is said to be working hard to thwart a bill before the Senate that would link aid to Pakistan with its performance in the war against terrorism since its successful passage could alter the entire US-Pakistan relationship.

Pakistan, according to a report in The Hill, a journal devoted to activities on Capitol Hill, has been lobbying hard this week to dilute the Senate version of the 9/11 Commission recommendations bill, approved by the House in January. The legislation was crafted by the office of House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos and included in the 9/11 bill. “The Bush administration, which has been publicly complimentary of Pakistan as an ally, opposed the House legislation imposing security aid sanctions on Pakistan, but now is using Congress as a sledgehammer against the Pakistani government,” reports the publication. A source told The Hill, “They know they can’t threaten Musharraf directly. It is a tactic that has some teeth in it.”

None of the legislation dealing with the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations likely to be taken up in the Senate includes any reference to Pakistan. Such language would come under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen Joseph Biden, although any other senator can offer legislation. A 9/11 bill authored by New Jersey Democratic Senators Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg includes Pakistan-specific clauses and has been referred to Sen Biden’s committee. It is not clear whether Sen Biden or another committee member would offer amendments relating to Pakistan. According to a congressional source, such legislation could be included in the 9/11 bill, but the Senate may want to take a more comprehensive approach toward Pakistan than the House did, potentially in separate legislation.

According to The Hill, the House Pakistan language, which received no debate and little notice in the lower chamber, sets limitations on US security assistance to Pakistan. A licence for any item controlled under the Arms Export Control Act may not be approved unless President Bush certifies that the “Government of Pakistan is making all possible efforts to prevent the Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control, including in the cities of Quetta and Chaman and in the Northwest Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.”

The president, however, can waive the limitations if he certifies that lifting them is important for national-security reasons.

In the specialised publication’s view, the certification would be difficult for the Bush administration to meet. “The administration has not done anyone any favours by saying pre-emptively that they would be able to certify that,” a source said. “It shows a large degree of contempt towards Congress by certifying something that is not truthful.”

The House legislation also directs the president to impose sanctions for transfers of nuclear technology involving foreign nationals. It also requires him to identify nuclear proliferation network countries and suspend arms sales to such countries. If applied retroactively, it could apply to Pakistan and the AQ Khan network. The House acknowledges that Pakistan has been an important partner in helping the United States remove the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and combat terrorism in the frontier Pakistan provinces.

The Hill reports, “Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington, Mahmud Ali Durrani, led a concerted push in the Senate, the administration and also the House to try and repeal the language proposed by the House. ‘Pakistan has done more for counterterrorism than anybody else,’ Durrani said in an interview. ‘It seems people tend to forget all our contributions. Since 9/11 we put our military where our mouth is, so to say - all our assets.’ He said that Pakistan continues to support US efforts in the region however it can. He cautioned that the issues arising between the United States, Pakistan and Afghanistan stem from poor coordination. ‘We need to be clear on what we are expecting from each other; we need to be clear about what each other’s capabilities are and we need to sit across the table, roll up our sleeves and start discussing,’ he said. Instead of following the spirit of the 9/11 Commission report, the House used the report to ‘bushwhack’ Pakistan, Durrani told The Hill. ‘A bill like HR 1 is grossly unfair’.”

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\03\01\story_1-3-2007_pg1_9

 

[Lahori paa jee]

Mush was a fool if he thought Americans were with him because of his support to the war on terror.

Kahan gaye wo barey barey dawe key yeh sab Pakistan key supreme interest main ho raha hai. Isnt history repeating itself. Similar sanctions on Pakistan stopped shipment of jets and aid in 1990's. We are again relying on US for missiles, jets, aid, political support and trade.

 

[HASEEB66]

I think it is just another brick in the wall around Pakistan. Giving goodies like F16 and P3 but directly adding manipulation.

nice to hear pink floyd lyric

 

[HASEEB66]

former president bill clinton in a recent labour conference in manchester said " i was wrong in not helping poor countries like pakistan" therefore if hilary clinton wins things wou'nt be difficult for pakistan...

 

[HASEEB66]

Mush was a fool if he thought Americans were with him because of his support to the war on terror.

Kahan gaye wo barey barey dawe key yeh sab Pakistan key supreme interest main ho raha hai. Isnt history repeating itself. Similar sanctions on Pakistan stopped shipment of jets and aid in 1990's. We are again relying on US for missiles, jets, aid, political support and trade.

no we arent we are going towards self dependency....i think mushy should start getting close to hilary intellectually offcourse..

 

[HASEEB66]

the threat is empty if america stops aid to pakistan pakistan simply stop helping them
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/
check us could have killed obl link

 

[Lahori paa jee]

Do u think it will be that easy to give up on America

 

[Cheetah786]

Pakistani legislators have threatened to halt counterterrorism cooperation with Washington if American military aid is made conditional on Islamabad's commitment to fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
The link, contained in a bill that has cleared the US House of Representatives, could sour relations between Washington and Islamabad.
The defence committee of Pakistan's lower house of parliament said in an unanimous resolution on Friday.
"Pakistan should curtail or completely stop its cooperation with the United States if the bill is enacted into a law," committee chief Chaudhary Shujaat Hussain told reporters.
The committee said Pakistan's contribution in the global "war on terror" launched after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States had been greater than any other country's.
If it becomes law, the condition "calls for a reciprocal action from Pakistan, including complete or partial non-cooperation in the war against terror," the defence committee of Pakistan's lower house of parliament said on Friday.
Joint session of parliament
The committee called for the two houses of parliament to hold a joint session and take necessary action if the US bill is passed, Hussain said.
The recommendation of the committee reflects strong resentment in Pakistani government circles over the proposed legislation, which has been repeatedly criticised by Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president and a key US ally.
Dick Cheney, the US vice president, paid a surprise visit to Islamabad last week to urge Musharraf to do more against Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants who he said were regrouping along the Afghan border.
Pakistan says it has captured more than 700 Al-Qaeda operatives who came into the country from neighbouring Afghanistan after US-led forces ousted the Taliban regime in late 2001.:flag:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/571B5C3B-0B4D-49C2-AAE4-DFD741DCB913.htm

 

[Lahori paa jee]

Pakistani legislators have threatened to halt counterterrorism cooperation with Washington if American military aid is made conditional on Islamabad's commitment to fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
The link, contained in a bill that has cleared the US House of Representatives, could sour relations between Washington and Islamabad.
The defence committee of Pakistan's lower house of parliament said in an unanimous resolution on Friday.
"Pakistan should curtail or completely stop its cooperation with the United States if the bill is enacted into a law," committee chief Chaudhary Shujaat Hussain told reporters.
The committee said Pakistan's contribution in the global "war on terror" launched after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States had been greater than any other country's.
If it becomes law, the condition "calls for a reciprocal action from Pakistan, including complete or partial non-cooperation in the war against terror," the defence committee of Pakistan's lower house of parliament said on Friday.
Joint session of parliament
The committee called for the two houses of parliament to hold a joint session and take necessary action if the US bill is passed, Hussain said.
The recommendation of the committee reflects strong resentment in Pakistani government circles over the proposed legislation, which has been repeatedly criticised by Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president and a key US ally.
Dick Cheney, the US vice president, paid a surprise visit to Islamabad last week to urge Musharraf to do more against Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants who he said were regrouping along the Afghan border.
Pakistan says it has captured more than 700 Al-Qaeda operatives who came into the country from neighbouring Afghanistan after US-led forces ousted the Taliban regime in late 2001.:flag:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/571B5C3B-0B4D-49C2-AAE4-DFD741DCB913.htm

I welcome this legislation. Feel it should have been done alot earlier. After all Pakistan has done we recieved peanuts and had to tolerate nonsense from every quarter even from a joker Karzai.

I feel we should end our deal of F 16s too. Wot in Afghanistan is going to end one day but our dependence on US for the supply of spares will not. They have let us down twice. Are we fool enough to give them a third chance