Pak-US Relationship

[Neo]

US gives $3bn in aid to Pakistan

The United States has provided more than $3bn in aid to Pakistan since President Zardari came to power a year ago, its ambassador in Islamabad says.

Anne W Patterson said the money was given in "combined security, economic and development assistance".

She made the comments in response to media reports that US aid to Pakistan was determined on an assessment of the government's performance.

Ms Patterson said partisan politics did not determine assistance to Pakistan.

"The US government will continue to deliver assistance to Pakistan through a variety of long-standing vectors as required by American law to ensure transparency and accountability, and is not depriving the Pakistani government any degree of direct funding as a result of a lack of confidence or trust," the US ambassador said.

Ms Patterson said that some of the anticipated non-military aid would be "directly transferred to the government" and the remainder sent through government institutions and non-governmental organisations.

"There's a huge internal capacity to develop Pakistan, and we want to tap into it," she said.

"Using a deliberate qualifying process, we will stream more funding through national, provincial, and local institutions, and built their capacity to work with us in the future."

Earlier this week, Pakistan's former president, Pervez Musharraf, reportedly said the US military aid given to Pakistan during his tenure had been used to strengthen defences against India.

But in a statement issued on Wednesday, Mr Musharraf, currently on a lecture tour of the US, said Pakistan "never violated any agreement or mis-utilised US funds".

"As far as the equipment issued to a military unit is concerned, the equipment moves wherever the unit is deployed," he said.

The US gave $10bn to Pakistan to fight the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

In 2007, Pakistan rejected a report which said it had used $5bn on weapons systems designed to fight India.

Pakistan's military described the New York Times report as "nonsense".

In May this year, the US announced it was sending $110m (£71m) in aid to Pakistan to help it cope with the refugee crisis in the north-west.

[Neo]

US assistance to people or to government?

EDITORIAL (September 18 2009): The United States Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson, in a written statement issued by the Embassy, claimed that "the US government has already provided 3 billion dollars since President Zardari was elected and will continue to deliver assistance to Pakistan through a variety of longstanding vectors as required by American law to ensure transparency and accountability, and is not depriving Pakistani government of any degree of direct funding as a result of a lack of confidence or trust."

The purpose of the statement was to dispel doubts raised in the Pakistani media post-17 April 2009 Friends of Democratic Pakistan meeting held in Tokyo about the trust deficit under the Zardari presidency being responsible for bilateral pledges of 5.34 billion dollars, inclusive of US pledges, not fully translating into disbursements to-date.

Her statement has, however, further fuelled the controversy; and since Patterson's statement was in writing she may find it difficult to refute or dismiss any part thereof as a 'misunderstanding' on the part of journalists, a stance clearly and unambiguously exhibited recently when the Presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar denied the President admitted to a 'deal' brokered by foreign powers under which former President Musharraf was granted immunity from prosecution in front of the Islamabad press corps.

The Ambassador's claim that the US administration extended 3 billion dollars to Pakistan since President Zardari was elected (first week of September 2008) is false, so indicated Federal Finance Minister Shaukat Tarin who stated that the US had released around 943 million dollars during the period in question. Could the remaining over 2 billion dollars have been released to the armed forces under a separate account? This is not possible as the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) would have been on board with respect to the inflow of funds.

Data available on the SBP website, updated till 5 September, validates the Finance Minister's figures. Perhaps, Patterson was driven by her zeal to ease concerns of the Pakistani government much perturbed by statements of senior US and UK officials that they are committing to the development of the people of Pakistan instead of to individuals, as in the past.

Be that as it may had the country received 3 billion dollars between September 2008 and 2009 our balance of payment position would have eased considerably and Pakistan may not have needed to go for additional funding of a little over 3 billion dollars from the International Monetary Fund over a month ago.

The Ambassador also insisted that some of the money from the Kerry-Lugar Bill, as and when it is passed, envisaging assistance of a total of 1.5 billion dollars for the next five years, would find its way directly into government coffers. She however did not identify the exact amount under this head.

Money being fungible, the Finance Minister would, without doubt, want to utilise the money for balance of payment support, possible only if the money is channelled to the government. One would hope that the Finance Minister turns his focus on drastically cutting down on unnecessary imports to lower the trade deficit and allow direct bilateral support for development projects thereby reducing its own development budget allocations.

Patterson's target audience, it appears, was the government and not the people of this country. Her assertion that accountability and transparency will be ensured as per the American law would, without doubt, be supported by the people of this country as the perception of weak governance is pervasive at present.

The government has not only failed to resolve the issue of circular debt, responsible partly for the ongoing loadshedding, but is also held accountable for high sugar and atta prices, attributed to cartels and the government's failure to deal with them, as well as charges of nepotism in appointments resulting in huge losses, as has been evident in the case of Pakistan Steel and Pakistan International Airlines.

If winning the hearts and minds of the people of Pakistan is indeed the US administration's priority as stated by Paul Jones, deputy special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, then the focus must remain on transparency and accountability in assistance. The present government would, in time, get credit for any development activity undertaken during its tenure whether it was directly engaged in the activity or not.

[Neo]

Pakistan’s perspective

Dawn Editorial
Friday, 18 Sep, 2009

IF ever there was a time that the US has appeared to ‘get’ Pakistan’s approach to regional security, this may be it.

Adm Mike Mullen has made two telling statements at a hearing of the US Senate Committee on Armed Services this week. First, Adm Mullen has accurately summarised Pakistan’s approach by stating that our strategy for dealing with militancy is affected by the ‘principal’ and ‘existential’ threat from India, though the army is seriously concerned about the threat of militancy and is addressing the problem to an extent. Setting aside the issue of apportioning blame for the mess of militancy for a minute and taking a hard look at the overall security environment of this region, Adm Mullen’s frank call for ‘realism’ is the right one. Pakistan has serious and legitimate interests to defend vis-à-vis India.

First and foremost, with or without Pakistani-sponsored or -encouraged jihad in Kashmir, the Kashmir issue is very much alive and it needs to be resolved. Denying or downplaying the dissatisfaction in Indian-administered Kashmir will not change that fact. Other serious issues include the fair use of the two countries’ dwindling water supplies, Indian ‘interference’ inside Pakistan, its expanding interests in Afghanistan and the lingering suspicion that the Indian political class remains in thrall to hawkish elements who are opposed to the normalisation of ties with Pakistan. Until and unless these issues are resolved to the mutual satisfaction of both countries, India will loom large in Pakistan’s ‘threat perception’. It is not a threat on the part of Pakistan to demand to be released from those concerns before it can fully turn its attention to defeating militancy inside Pakistan and in the region generally. Nor does it mean that Pakistan can demand, or is demanding, that the Pak-India and militancy issues be addressed sequentially. It just means that long-term peace in the region will only be possible if Pakistan and India can resolve their differences.

Second, Adm Mullen has correctly pointed out that there is real uncertainty in Afghanistan and Pakistan over whether the Americans remain committed to the region. Part of that uncertainty, which breeds fear and perhaps causes the Pakistani and Afghan governments to baulk at full cooperation with the US, is created by the way the US has defined its goal in the region i.e. eliminating safe havens for Al Qaeda. Suppose the Americans do achieve that goal, will that mean cutting and running like they did two decades ago? Notwithstanding long-term aid commitments, the US needs to do more to reassure Pakistan and Afghanistan of its commitment to the region.

[Interceptor]

Pak-US ties indispensable, says Holbrooke

19/09/09

WASHINGTON: Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, on Friday said the partnership between Washington and Pakistan was ‘indispensable’, and reaffirmed the Obama administration’s commitment to help Pakistan counter extremism along its northwestern border with Afghanistan.

Speaking at the launch of a Pushto broadcast service along the Pak-Afghan border regions by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Holbrooke said broadcasting in the local language would help advance public debate and counter extremist propaganda in the NWFP. “We will support [Pakistanis in] every way we can, in the [field of] media and everywhere else. We are not going to set up American broadcasting stations… We look forward to [the service] contributing to public debate in this democratic country,” he said at Washington’s Newseum, an interactive museum of news and journalism. app

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...9-9-2009_pg7_7

[Neo]

US Congress approves $2.3bn aid package for Pakistan

Tuesday, 22 Sep, 2009

WASHINGTON: The American Congress has approved an aid package of over two billion dollars for Pakistan for the current fiscal year ahead of an important meeting between President Asif Zardari and a US economic team, DawnNews reported.

The US Congress approved the $2.376 million aid for the 2008-2009 financial year, while the US administration’s request for $2.282 million for the financial year 2009-2010 is pending for approval of the US Congress.

In addition, the US administration has provided $913 million cash reimbursement with regard to the Coalition Support Fund. — DawnNews

[ferrari]

US-Pakistan relationship is that of customer-service provider relationship. Customer pays money to obtain services, similarly, US pays money to obtain services from Pakistani military. It is not a strategic relationship at all. If it were strategic relationship, US would have provided/offered best military hardware, but that seems to be not the case.

[Interceptor]

Obama says Kerry-Lugar bill approved

September 24, 2009

WASHINGTON: US President Barrack Obama Thursday said the US senate has unanimously approved the amended Kerry-Lugar bill.

He made the above announcement while addressing the Friends of Democratic Pakistan (FODP) summit.

The US President said under the Kerry-Lugar bill Pakistan will provided financial aid of 1.5 billion dollars per year for five years.

The condition of cooperation with India has been removed from the bill while a new condition of cooperation with the neighbours on war against terrorism has been included in the amended bill. The condition on Dr. Abdul Qadir Khan has also been struck out.

http://thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=87559

[Interceptor]

Originally Posted by ferrari

US-Pakistan relationship is that of customer-service provider relationship. Customer pays money to obtain services, similarly, US pays money to obtain services from Pakistani military. It is not a strategic relationship at all. If it were strategic relationship, US would have provided/offered best military hardware, but that seems to be not the case.

Gov to gov relationship is built around interest and trust, the US feels a strategic importance of Pakistan in its policy making of Asia and Mid east, because of trust. This US Pakistan relation came in being in an accident by late Liaqat Ali Khan the first appointed PM, Jinnah saab wanted to support the Russia but Liaqat sent greetings to US, he felt it was in our interest. Our relationship has been up and down depending on what party is in power. During the 60s Pakistan got the best US hardware available at that time we got star fighter F104 which were the F-16 of that era. But with interest this relationship changed in 70s which was the era of Vietnam we were against it and 80s again saw change with Zia regime receiving all kinds of support. There are miss trusts but this relationship at the current state is only growing and maturing. Pakistan is in need of a foreign policy in which we can define the boundaries for each strategic partner.

[Neo]

America and us

By Munir Attaullah

undefined When it comes down to the nitty-gritty of one’s own personal beneficial interests, usually everyone ends up being a ‘realist’. If this is the case even with individuals, is it not even more certain that policy makers charged with taking hard decisions will act in what they perceive as hard national self interest?

Here is some good news and bad news.

The good news is that the Pakistani Bridge legend, Zia Mahmood, after some half-a-dozen frustrating second place finishes over the years, finally won a World Championship last week. Sadly, his celebrated partner on Pakistani teams of yesteryears, Masood Salim, did not live to see the day. He had died a few days earlier.

The bad news is that Zia won playing on an American team rather than a Pakistani one. Here is solid proof for our xenophobes that these damned Americans will stop at nothing to violate our sovereignty and capture our vital resources!

Flippancy aside, it is worth my reviewing today our tortured love-hate relationship, spanning half a century, with the world’s most powerful nation. For, we face a peculiar situation. There is a yawning disconnect between the thinking of most of our ba-sha’oor awam (egged on by many of our opinionated two-a-paisa master analysts) and those responsible for running the affairs of state. The public, overwhelmingly, thinks of America as, if not quite Enemy No 2 (India being the obvious No 1), at least as a wholly insufferable and baleful intruder in our affairs, who we should — and can — well do without. Our rulers on the other hand seem to think — for miscellaneous but good reasons — we cannot currently do without American help and support.

Now who is right, the awam or the rulers? Is it really the case that our policy makers are an unpatriotic lot who think nothing of selling out the nation for their own personal selfish interests? Or, are they that stupid they cannot clearly see where the country’s real interests lie? Or, though they know what they should do, they are too bay-ghairat to stand up and deliver a moo’nh-tor jawab to the forces of evil imperialism?

Alternatively, could it possibly be that the much touted ba-sha’oor awam, through a combination of their own ignorance and influenced by the powerful, emotion-laden propaganda of the right-wing forces wearing ideological blinkers, have got it all wrong?

Yes, there is always that third possibility, as is often the case. That is, there are plenty of arguments available to either side to bring to the table. The question then — at least for a reasonable and sane person — becomes one of weighing up the worth of the various arguments in making up his mind.

But even this seemingly obvious method of making judgements is laced with difficulties. For, it assumes that we make important decisions on a rational basis. But, as we all know, conviction, wishful thinking, and emotion can all too easily cloud (even overcome) rationality (e.g. did Generals Ayub and Musharraf not think India would not cross the Line of Control if they started their adventures?). Could the answer then, to the conundrum I posed, lie in that last sentence? I certainly think so.

Of the emotional anti-American arguments, none is as powerful for us as the one that identifies America as the enemy of the Muslims. Did America not plunge a dagger in the Arab heart by creating and unconditionally backing a state that has dispossessed the Palestinians of their rights and annexed one of Islam’s holiest cities? Has it not launched two unnecessary and vicious wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) against Muslim states and caused untold misery? Does it not support and prop up corrupt and dictatorial Muslim regimes against the wishes of the local people?

For a certain category of person who identifies powerfully with the concept of Muslims as one ummah, such arguments seem pretty conclusive. But let me ask an awkward question: what happened to this thinking during the Zia decade and the Afghan Jehad? Sure, the two wars I mentioned earlier were still in the future. But American support for corrupt Arab regimes and Israel, and the suffering of the Palestinians, was very much a reality even then. So why then did Osama bin Laden, General Gul et al fraternise with America and happily and gratefully take their arms and money to fight what was equally a US war against the Soviet Union? And — forget America — why were our religious parties the biggest supporters of our local dictator of the time (and of Musharraf, later on)?

This should lead one to conclude that, when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of one’s own personal beneficial interests, usually everyone ends up being a ‘realist’. If this is the case even with individuals, is it not even more certain that policy makers charged with taking hard decisions will act in what they perceive as hard national self interest? The luxury of ‘principled stands’ is usually the preserve of those who do not have such responsibility but have the freedom to shout from the sidelines.

Is America in our region to ‘grab’ the Middle East’s oil and Central Asian resources for itself and to squelch Chinese ambitions? But why then did it withdraw from Kuwait and Iraq when all was there for the taking after the first Gulf war? And why did the US completely ignore us and Afghanistan for some 15 years after the Russian withdrawal, until provoked by 9/11? Because, in the modern age, you satisfy your resource needs by buying, selling, and investing, not through conquest and military control.

Is America hell-bent on depriving us of the ‘Islamic bomb’, or at least neutralising in some way our nuclear capability, as many claim? Well, any sane person will have to admit that the rest of the world had some genuine good reasons to be worried about our nuclear capability. There was the proliferation aspect, our steady drift into dangerous Islamic extremism, and our readiness to indulge in reckless adventures (such as Kargil) against India with possibly unpredictable escalatory consequences.

Sure, the Americans would have preferred we had not developed the capability, or tested the weapon. And they applied (unsuccessfully) all the pressure and offered all the inducements they realistically could during the 80s and 90’s in trying to dissuade us from doing so. They could do no more then, and they can do no more now. As for that current fantasy of the likes of Gen Gul that the Americans plan an attack by a trained commando force of a few hundred marines (now allegedly stationed in Islamabad) to take out our nuclear capability, all I can say is WOW! Are we really a banana republic, and our army just a paper tiger?

There is a much simpler and obvious way of viewing our on again-off again relationship with the US. The old adage that states have interests not friends holds true. Think of that humiliating few hours visit to Pakistan of President Clinton in the Musharraf era. The US was then simply not interested in us or our nuclear capability. Today, however, it has every interest, not directly in our nuclear weapons but in our survival as a stable, non-jihadi state, because without our help there is little prospect of the international community resolving satisfactorily the Afghanistan and Al Qaeda problems.

That such interest in us currently coincides with our own desperate security and financial interests is recognised by our hard-nosed policy makers as an opportunity that needs to be seized by us with both hands. The time for ‘an independent foreign policy’ will come only after we have put our own house firmly in order.

The writer is a businessman. A selection of his columns is now available in book form. Visit munirattaullah.com

[Neo]

Clinton to help secure investments

NEW YORK (September 24 2009): Former US President Bill Clinton on Monday promised to help Pakistan in securing much-needed foreign investments that would create opportunities for the country's economic growth and well-being of its people. The former US president, who heads the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), told President Asif Ali Zardari at a meeting with the Pakistani leader that his organisation would work with Pakistan's private and public sectors in furthering those objectives.

In this regard, Clinton said he would soon visit Pakistan, according to the spokesman of the president and former Senator, Farhatullah Babar. President Zardari, who arrived in New York on Sunday night, has a packed schedule of engagements during his stay in New York. He got down to work soon after his arrival.

The CGI works with the private sector, non-governmental organisations and global leaders to effectively confront the world's most pressing problems. Briefing newsmen on the Clinton-Zardari meeting, Babar said that former president Clinton expressed appreciation for the achievements made by Pakistan under the leadership of President Zardari and wished him continued success.

He said that President Zardari was especially keen on meeting Clinton since this year's action areas of CGI were of interest to Pakistan, including strengthening of infrastructure, building of human capital and women's emancipation. President Zardari urged Clinton to launch projects for small-and medium-sized dams to help Pakistan meet its pressing water and energy needs. Thirteen dam sites have been identified - five in Balochistan, four in Sindh and two each in Punjab and NWFP.

The president said the CGI should look at the prospects of private/public enterprise to undertake these crucial projects for Pakistan. In addition, President Zardari proposed that CGI should consider awarding scholarships to 10 brilliant Pakistani students for studies in US educational institutions.

In the context of building infrastructure, President Zardari told former US president that he welcomed the US for setting up an energy task force and looked forward to energy dialogue during the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Pakistan next month.

During the meeting, which lasted over 40 minutes, the spokesman said that the two leaders also discussed issue of militancy, Pak-US relations, Indo-Pak ties and the situation in the region. Clinton appreciated the progress made by Pakistan during the last one year, especially regarding fight against militancy and rehabilitation of displaced persons from the Swat region. In the context of Indo-Pak relations, President Zardari said he believed that dialogue and resumption of the composite dialogue were in the best interest of the region, the spokesman added.

Pakistan, he said was determined not to allow its territory to be used against any other country. Expressing concern over Drone attacks, he said Pakistan should be provided with the Drone technology so that it could itself combat the militants instead of its use by others.

In the context of US-Pak economic relations, the President said steps should be taken to provide market access to Pakistani products in the US as well as the EU countries. Present at the meeting were Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Chairman Foreign Relations Committee of the National Assembly, Asfandyar Wali, Secretary General Salman Farooqi and Farhatullah Babar.