US to give 40pc aid to Pakistan via non-govt sector

[Veeru]

US to give 40pc aid to Pakistan via non-govt sector

ISLAMABAD: With more than 75 per cent payment of the Coalition Support Fund (CSF) still due, Pakistan and the United States agreed on Sunday to channel 60 per cent assistance under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act through the government and 40 per cent in civil society initiatives.

Pakistan sought a clear system of information-sharing from Washington and a joint mechanism for oversight of the funding to be disbursed by the US through civil society organisations.

New US Special Representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan Marc Grossman will hold discussion on the joint oversight mechanism with the top political leadership on Monday against the backdrop of the diplomatic row over the Raymond Davis issue.

Mr Grossman, on his first two-day visit to Pakistan, held a meeting with Finance Minister Dr Abdul Hafeez Shaikh.

The Pakistani side is also reported to have expressed concern over an inordinate delay in setting up reconstruction opportunity zones (ROZs) in the tribal region because of legal hitches in the US.

The government believes the proposed zones might already have lost their `opportunity` value.According to sources, the visiting envoy was told that more than 75 per cent of the payments for providing services to the coalition forces under the CSF were pending despite the implementation of a verifiable system for reconciliation of bills.

Mr Grossman promised to personally look into the billing claims and the verification process for speedy payments, the sources said.

An official statement said Mr Shaikh gave a detailed account of economic reforms undertaken to improve the economic conditions and highlighted budget priorities, including resource mobilisation, expenditure cut, tax measures and control of inflation.

The minister gave an overview of the state of the economy when the government had taken over and said economic growth had been lost because of non-reconciliation of development with reforms and the whole macro-economic framework had been affected.

He apprised the US envoy of difficult decisions he had to take for transition of the economy towards development after last year`s floods and increase in international oil prices.

Mr Grossman praised the economic measures and expressed the hope that they would benefit the people.

He said relations between Pakistan and the US were not only beneficial to both countries but also imperative for the region.

Praising Pakistan`s focus on development of the energy sector, he said it was fundamental for the economic and social development of any country.

The American representative stressed the need for developing relations in terms of people-to-people contacts.

The finance minister said the main objective of the strategic dialogue was to shift the relationship from government to the people`s level and strengthen it at the grassroots.

The two sides also discussed the establishment by the United States of an enterprise fund for better access of Pakistani pro- ducts to the United States market.

US to give 40pc aid via non-govt sector | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

 

[JayAtl]

more of my tax dollars.

get the hell out of there....

 

[DelhiDareDevil]

More tanks to deploy on India-Pak border now?

 

[r3alist]

more of my tax dollars.

get the hell out of there....

ofcourse, your tax payer money should go to subsidizing and helping india and indians.

if the us requires a service from pakistan it needs to pay, so far its hardly given anything in comparison to the cost.

one can argue the loss of life has no price, but using roads, hardware, armies and intelligence does have a price - US needs to pay up for services rendered.

 

[JayAtl]

ofcourse, your tax payer money should go to subsidizing and helping india and indians.

if the us requires a service from pakistan it needs to pay, so far its hardly given anything in comparison to the cost.

one can argue the loss of life has no price, but using roads, hardware, armies and intelligence does have a price - US needs to pay up for services rendered.

US needs to leave and not give up a penny more. You guys are always saying if the US left you would have no terrorism internally and it would usher a Golden era of economic revival. Are you now changing your mind? They have given enough of aid, paid enough to date for decades. Enough! time to get out...

and why bring India into this--- US likes India a lot, they do business and is a trading partner. Like it or not--India is not a burden for the US. Why are you so hot and bothered about US/India relationship? what does it have to do with the topic on hand.?

 

[53fd]

The US always talks about the aid they give to Pakistan, but the funny thing is that they haven't given Pakistan even 10% of the aid they say they give to Pakistan. I agree, the US needs to stop sending the '10% of the aid they promise to Pakistan' & leave the region, for the benefit of both countries, but we know that the US is in Afghanistan for its selfish reasons, not for the Afghan people. It's sad because people here in America are nothing like how the government acts.

 

[JayAtl]

The US always talks about the aid they give to Pakistan, but the funny thing is that they haven't given Pakistan even 10% of the aid they say they give to Pakistan. I agree, the US needs to stop sending the '10% of the aid they promise to Pakistan' & leave the region, for the benefit of both countries, but we know that the US is in Afghanistan for its selfish reasons, not for the Afghan people. It's sad because people here in America are nothing like how the government acts.

Since you live in that big bad anti Muslim US country yourself- why not do a big bad Google search and see what US has paid out to Pakistan in aid in the 10 years. Go ahead our " internetS" are not blocked...

I'm with you on get out of there and if anything comes and attacks us in future from that region carpet nuke them for all I care.. ( not literally of course )- till then let Pakistanis handle their back yard and business ...and get the hell out. But where I'm not with you is obfuscating facts - facts about the number of aid US has given - I wont be able to fit in one page - both military and civilian. I know you said you are 23 and been living in the US for 9 years and so you may have not known the history of the relationship- but seriously do the research as I suggested.

 

[53fd]

Since you live in that big bad anti Muslim US country yourself- why not do a big bad Google search and see what US has paid out to Pakistan in aid in the 10 years. Go ahead our " internetS" are not blocked...

I'm with you on get out of there and if anything comes and attacks us in future from that region carpet nuke them for all I care.. ( not literally of course )- till then let Pakistanis handle their back yard and business ...and get the hell out. But where I'm not with you is obfuscating facts - facts about the number of aid US has given - I wont be able to fit in one page - both military and civilian. I know you said you are 23 and been living in the US for 9 years and so you may have not known the history of the relationship- but seriously do the research as I suggested.

There is a huge difference of what the US has pledged to pay, and what has actually been sent by the US to Pakistan. You seem to forget that the attackers of 9/11 were Saudi, not Iraqi or Afghani, Al-Qaeda not Taliban. We should have attacked Saudi Arabia, as they are the breeding ground and home to Al-Qaeda. Yet, we attack Iraq and Afghanistan that have nothing to do with 9/11. It's a shame what this country has turned into, although I moved to this country in its downfall (right after 2001), so I didn't really live in the 'glory days' here. Btw, I'm sure you know that our internet is being monitored here in the US, right? There are plenty of times where even this PDF site was blocked for days on my internet.

 

[53fd]

Don't need to mention US's aid to Pakistan before 9/11, the US has never given anyone freebies, the 'aid' was used for strategic leverage and services provided by Pakistan to the US. I'll give you links from 'impartial' sources:

U.S. economic aid to Pakistan, which totals more than $1.5 billion a year, is a key part of the Obama administration's strategy to strengthen the U.S.-Pakistan strategic partnership. But most of the aid that was allocated for last year is still in U.S. government coffers.

Only $179.5 million out of $1.51 billion in U.S. civilian aid to Pakistan was actually disbursed in fiscal 2010, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released last month. Almost all of that was distributed as part of the Kerry-Lugar aid package passed last year.

None of the funds were spent to create the kind of water, energy and food infrastructure that Richard Holbrooke advocated for diligently when he was the administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Moreover, according to the report, the Obama administration hasn't yet set up the mechanisms to make sure the money isn't misspent.

"The full impact of the fiscal year 2010 civilian assistance could not be determined because most of the funding had not yet been disbursed," the report states. The GAO tracked Kerry-Lugar money sent to Pakistan by Dec. 31. "It will take some time before significant outcomes of the civilian assistance can be measured."

Holbrooke's office, which is now run by Marc Grossman, told The Cable that the leftover funds were due to the fact that the money was appropriated belatedly and because the first year of the program carried with it unique challenges.


"While the facts of the GAO report are accurate, it doesn't reflect the big picture nor adequately represent what we've achieved with civilian assistance over the last year," said Jessica Simon, a spokeswoman for Grossman's office.

Experts note that the disparity between U.S. promises to Pakistan and funds delivered is a constant irritant in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.

"There are always complaints, and in terms of the delays, there are pretty valid reasons on both sides," said Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council. He said that Congress's requirement that the money be tracked and accounted for is a source of contention.

"For a long time, the U.S. didn't ask any questions about the money. And so it became a bit of a shock," he said.

Most U.S. aid to Pakistan hasn't gotten there yet


Let me do some simple calculations here for you:

179.5/1510 x 100 = 11.89% of the US proposed aid was actually sent out by them to Pakistan

And the 2010 payments were made to assist with the flood aid. Pakistan has not even received several payments that the US was supposed to pay for its services.

 

[53fd]

Most U.S. aid to Pakistan still in America’s hands

Posted By Josh Rogin Tuesday, March 1, 2011 - 6:49 PM Share

U.S. economic aid to Pakistan, which totals over $1.5 billion per year, is a key part of the Obama administration's strategy to strengthen the U.S.-Pakistan strategic partnership. However, most of the aid that was allocated for last year is still in U.S. government coffers.

Only $179.5 million out of $1.51 billion in U.S. civilian aid to Pakistan was actually disbursed in fiscal 2010, the Government Accountability Office stated in a report released last week. Almost all of that money was distributed as part of the Kerry-Lugar aid package passed last year.

$75 million of those funds were transferred to bolster the Benazir Income Support Program, a social development program run by the Pakistani government. Another $45 million was given to the Higher Education Commission to support "centers of excellence" at Pakistani universities; $19.5 million went to support Pakistan's Fulbright Scholarship program; $23.3 million went to flood relief; $1.2 billion remains unspent.

None of the funds were spent to construct the kind of water, energy, and food infrastructure that former Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan (SRAP) Richard Holbrooke advocated for diligently when he was the lead administration official in charge of managing the money. Moreover, according to the report, the Obama administration hasn't yet set up the mechanisms to make sure the money isn't misspent.

"The full impact of the fiscal year 2010 civilian assistance could not be determined because most of the funding had not yet been disbursed," the report stated. The GAO tracked Kerry-Lugar money sent to Pakistan up until Dec. 31. "It will take some time before significant outcomes of the civilian assistance can be measured."

Holbrooke's office, which is now run by the new SRAP Marc Grossman, told The Cable that the leftover funds were due to the fact that the money was appropriated belatedly and the first year of the program carried with it unique challenges.

"While the facts of the GAO report are accurate, it doesn't reflect the big picture nor adequately represent what we've achieved with civilian assistance over the last year," said Jessica Simon, a spokesperson for the SRAP office. "As the FY 2010 funding was appropriated in April 2010, it is hardly surprising that only a portion of the funding was disbursed by the end of the year."

Simon said that in total, the U.S. government has disbursed $878 million of Pakistan-specific assistance since October 2009, which includes over $514 million in emergency humanitarian assistance in response to the devastating July 2010 floods.

The floods also slowed the progress of the Kerry-Lugar program, Sen. John Kerry's spokesman Frederick Jones told The Cable.

"The floods last summer changed the Pakistani landscape, literally and figuratively, and required us to take a step back and reexamine all of our plans," Jones said. "Bureaucracies move slowly and redirecting aid at this level requires time and some patience. It is difficult to allocate billions of dollars in a responsible way without proper vetting, which takes time."

Experts note that the disparity between U.S. promises to Pakistan and funds delivered is a constant irritant in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.

"There are always complaints and in terms of the delays there are pretty valid reasons on both sides," said Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council. He said that Congress's requirement that the money be tracked and accounted for is a source of contention.

"For a long time the U.S. didn't ask any questions about the money. And so it became a bit of a shock," he said.

The GAO has long called for better oversight of the funds, especially in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). This lack of accountability is what spurred Congress to mandate better oversight of the Kerry-Lugar money, including provisions that require reporting on the Pakistani military's level of assistance to the United States.

Those provisions were portrayed in some parts of the Pakistani press as unwarranted interference in Pakistani affairs. Popular reception of the Kerry-Lugar bill in Pakistan was filled with skepticism of U.S. intentions.

Regardless, Holbrooke was determined to make sure the money achieved the desired result of improving America's image in Pakistan. He battled successfully with some in Congress and even those inside the Obama administration to steer the money directly toward Pakistani organizations rather than filtering it through USAID contractors.

"The big shift was that the Pakistani government had complained that most of the money was being given to U.S. contractors and not making it Pakistan. The big shift was to reduce the role of the beltway bandits... and that shift is here to stay," said Nawaz.

According to the GAO, the United States has given Pakistan over $18 billion, mostly in security-related aid, since 2002.

Source: Washington Post

Most U.S. aid to Pakistan still in America

 

[53fd]

I never said America is a big anti-Muslim country. If it was, then they would not and should not have spared Saudi Arabia after 9/11. After all, it is the birthplace and breeding ground of Al-Qaeda and other Wahabi terrorist groups. However, it is in Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries that had nothing to do with 9/11, for its own strategic interests. I'm sure you'd be interested in knowing that there is virtually no Al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan, yet we still keep our forces there. Why? The Afghan people don't understand why we are there. They see as foreign invaders & occupiers. We have ruined that part of the world & undermined what this country really stood for when we attacked Iraq & Afghanistan.

 

[53fd]

That was year 2010. Let me give you some statistics for the years 2002 to 2008:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The United States has long suspected that much of the billions of dollars it has sent Pakistan to battle militants has been diverted to the domestic economy and other causes, such as fighting India.

Now the scope and longevity of the misuse is becoming clear: Between 2002 and 2008, while al-Qaida regrouped, only $500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually made it to the Pakistani military, two army generals tell The Associated Press.


At the time of the siphoning, Pervez Musharraf, a Washington ally, served as both chief of staff and president, making it easier to divert money intended for the military to bolster his sagging image at home through economic subsidies.

"The army itself got very little," said retired Gen. Mahmud Durrani, who was Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S. under Musharraf. "It went to things like subsidies, which is why everything looked hunky-dory. The military was financing the war on terror out of its own budget."

Generals and ministers say the diversion of the money hurt the military in very real ways:

_Helicopters critical to the battle in rugged border regions were not available. At one point in 2007, more than 200 soldiers were trapped by insurgents in the tribal regions without a helicopter lift to rescue them.

_The limited night vision equipment given to the army was taken away every three months for inventory and returned three weeks later.

_Equipment was broken, and training was lacking. It was not until 2007 that money was given to the Frontier Corps, the front-line force, for training.

Source: The Huffington Post

Billions In U.S. Aid To Pakistan Never Reached Army, Generals Say

Some other clarifications. $6.6 billion in 6 years equals $1.1billion per year. The $1.5billion per year the US pledged to give to Pakistan was both for military and non-military purposes. Essentially, the US pledged $0.4 billion per year for non-military purposes; and $1.1billion for military purposes, or for the military services Pakistan provided for the US, aka NO FREEBIE. I think it is clear, with the larger scale of operations conducted (& more success) by the Pakistan Army in Pakistan as compared to the US/NATO forces on the Afghan side, it deserved a lot more military ASSISTANCE (NOT aid) than it actually got. Afghanistan has got more than $170billion since the WOT.

Some simple calculations for you again:

500/6600 x 100 = 7.58% of US proposed aid actually given out to Pakistan

 

[53fd]

It's a myth if you say Pakistan needs US aid to survive, because clearly it has been doing so with a fraction, inconsequential amount given out by America. In fact, India receives more aid from the US than Pakistan does. I can give you specific sources of this as well. So I find it hypocritical of Indians talking about the US aid to Pakistan when it takes more aid than Pakistan.

And the US national debt is $14,222,675,500,000, or $14.22 trillion; and the debt per citizen is $45,739 and on a taxpayer, it is $128,177. As a naturalized US citizen, I think we should get done with this war, we are suffering from our misadventures and we can't afford these overseas misadventures anymore, for the sake of the future generations in America.

 

[JayAtl]

There is a huge difference of what the US has pledged to pay, and what has actually been sent by the US to Pakistan. You seem to forget that the attackers of 9/11 were Saudi, not Iraqi or Afghani, Al-Qaeda not Taliban. We should have attacked Saudi Arabia, as they are the breeding ground and home to Al-Qaeda. Yet, we attack Iraq and Afghanistan that have nothing to do with 9/11. It's a shame what this country has turned into, although I moved to this country in its downfall (right after 2001), so I didn't really live in the 'glory days' here. Btw, I'm sure you know that our internet is being monitored here in the US, right? There are plenty of times where even this PDF site was blocked for days on my internet.

Listen kiddo, I say that endearingly because I'm way older than you. read what I said-- "for the last 10 years! "

aid is not something new. when you were in kindergarten( hell before you even born they been giving economic and military aid)- the US was sending aid to Pakistan. read before replying this time.

 

[JayAtl]

It's a myth if you say Pakistan needs US aid to survive, because clearly it has been doing so with a fraction, inconsequential amount given out by America. In fact, India receives more aid from the US than Pakistan does. I can give you specific sources of this as well. So I find it hypocritical of Indians talking about the US aid to Pakistan when it takes more aid than Pakistan.

And the US national debt is $14,222,675,500,000, or $14.22 trillion; and the debt per citizen is $45,739 and on a taxpayer, it is $128,177. As a naturalized US citizen, I think we should get done with this war, we are suffering from our misadventures and we can't afford these overseas misadventures anymore, for the sake of the future generations in America.

1950-1964: As the Cold War heated up, a 1954 security agreement prompted the United States to provide nearly $2.5 billion in economic aid and $700 million in military aid to Pakistan.

1965-1979: With the Indo-Pakistani hostilities in the late 1960s, the United States retreated. Between 1965 and 1971, the U.S. sent only $26 million in military aid, which was cut back even further to $2.9 million through the end of the decade. Meanwhile, economic aid kept flowing, totaling $2.55 billion over the 15 years. Everything came to a halt in 1979, however, when the Carter administration cut off all but food aid after discovering a uranium-enrichment facility in Pakistan. Pakistani leader Gen. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq refused $400 million, split for economic and military aid from President Jimmy Carter, calling it "peanuts." The following year, he was rewarded with a much more attractive offer.

1979-1990: The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan changed everything. Pakistan's ISI security apparatus became the primary means of funneling covert U.S. assistance to anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan. From 1980 to 1990, the United States ramped up its contributions for both development and military purposes, sending more than $5 billion over the course of the decade.

1991-2000: But even while Pakistan was serving a strategic Cold War purpose, concerns persisted about the country's nuclear ambitions. That gave President George H.W. Bush an easy out from the massive funding commitments in 1990, after the fall of the Soviet Union. Aid over the next decade withered to $429 million in economic assistance and $5.2 million in military assistance, a drop-off Pakistanis still cite bitterly, accusing the United States of leaving them high and dry during the decade.

2001-2009: Since 9/11, the United States has once again bolstered its funding commitments, sending nearly $9 billion in military assistance both to aid and reimburse Pakistan for its operations in the unwieldy border regions with Afghanistan. Another $3.6 billion has funded economic and diplomatic initiatives. But U.S. officials and journalists' accounts have raised concerns that such funds are not being used as intended, and not just because of the typical concerns about corruption. Documented military and civilian government deals with Taliban elements, like a 2004 agreement with Waziri militant leader Nek Mohammed, have confirmed that money intended to fight the Taliban is, in many cases, being used instead to pay them off. (Islamabad is currently battling Taliban fighters in Waziristan.) When the deals fall through, as rapidly shifting alliances in Pakistan's tribal regions often do, that money ultimately ends up funding the insurgency. U.S. officials have expressed particular concerns about the Pakistani government's links to the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, which reportedly has ties to Al Qaeda. At the same time, former president Pervez Musharraf has recently admitted to using U.S. military funding to strengthen defenses against India.

2009-2014: A new five-year, $7.5 billion assistance package was passed by Congress in September and signed by President Obama in October, with stipulations explicitly prohibiting funds from being used for nuclear proliferation, to support terrorist groups, or to pay for attacks in neighboring countries. It also puts a new emphasis on the bottom line, reserving the right to cut off aid if Pakistan fails to crack down on militants. Those restrictions have opened a rift between the military and the civilian government in Pakistan, which maintain an uneasy relationship following nearly a decade of military rule under Musharraf. Military leaders worry they are being sidelined by the increased U.S. emphasis on development and accountability, claiming the bill threatens Pakistan's sovereignty. But supporters of the bill say the restrictions are no more stringent than previous ones, and accuse Pakistani military leaders of manufacturing a crisis to undermine the civilian government.

P.S> after this report ,the US gave another 2 billion to pak military just before obama's visit to India.

Over 70% of all aid was misspent by the pakistan goverment.

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/10/21/about-those-billions.html