Originally Posted by
Dreadnought
In case you haven't noticed, investment under the KLL is proceeding at a very slow pace, and the impact on public perception is pretty negligible at this point. In fact, the Pakistani Finance Minister pointed out, at a conference in the US a few weeks ago, that only around $300 million had been disbursed so far from KLL funds.So in terms of the impact of those funds currently, there is none, and if Congress does end the program, very little will be missed.
WASHINGTON: US lawmakers are debating whether they should attach more strings to the billions of dollars in aid they give Pakistan, or cut Islamabad off after Osama bin Laden was found not far from the capital.
Congress has approved $20 billion over the past decade for Pakistan, making it one of the biggest US aid recipients, with about half to reimburse Pakistan for help in fighting extremists.
The latest installment of more than $2 billion in military aid was approved just three weeks ago as part of a budget deal to avert a U.S. government shutdown.
Congress also provided for more civilian aid to Pakistan which could top $1 billion. Some lawmakers are demanding a halt to the aid now that al Qaeda leader bin Laden has been found and killed by US forces in a Pakistani military town, Abbottabad. But others say Washington still needs Pakistan as a partner to fight terrorism.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said this week Pakistan had lost many soldiers fighting extremism within its own borders, and suggested more controls should be put on the U.S. aid instead of dropping it entirely. “I hope we will have better oversight of the money that is being given to Pakistan,” Reid, a Democrat, told reporters.
Legislation in 2009 boosting civilian aid to Pakistan set out conditions for military aid, including calling on Pakistan to combat terrorists on its territory. The United States has pressed Pakistan for years to get rid of militant sanctuaries on its side of the border with Afghanistan.
There was also concern about the long-running ties between Pakistan’s military and the Afghan Taliban. Pakistan was furious about the conditions. Now some US lawmakers, including some who pushed to increase aid to Pakistan, question whether the conditions have been met.
“The notion of a close and strong relationship with Pakistan in part is premised on their cooperation in our confrontation with terrorist groups. The record so far is very weak,” Representative Howard Berman, a co-sponsor of the 2009 aid bill, said this week.
The military in Pakistan “is not serving the interests that we intended that military aid to serve,” Berman, a Democrat, told Reuters.
“Even before the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, I was getting more and more skeptical about what we are getting for our taxpayer money.”
Certifying that Pakistan fights terrorists
Under the conditions in the 2009 law, no security aid was to be given to Pakistan in 2011-2014 unless the US secretary of state made certain findings, including that Pakistan had “demonstrated a sustained commitment to and is making significant efforts towards combating terrorist groups.”
Progress that Pakistan made on “preventing al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups …. from operating in the territory of Pakistan” was to be taken into account.
The Obama administration made the necessary findings so that the 2011 aid could be approved, with its justifications classified, Berman said. But the administration has expressed ever more frustration with Pakistan, lately going public with it. Eleven days before bin Laden was killed, the top US military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, accused Pakistan’s intelligence agency of maintaining ties to militants targeting U.S. troops in neighboring Afghanistan.
Mullen called for Pakistan to take a more assertive stand against the Haqqani network, a longtime insurgent faction allied with the Afghan Taliban. One US analyst expressed skepticism that new conditions on aid, should Congress develop them, would be more effective. “We and Pakistan are backing different horses in Afghanistan, so don’t expect Pakistan to heed U.S. legislative provisions regarding the Haqqani network,” said Michael Krepon, director of the south Asia program at the Stimson Center think tank.
*I would have zero problem with them removing the aid. None what so ever. Very little will be missed you claim but your military thinks much differently and they need those funds. It all depends upon their performance which has been sub par thus far.
As I pointed out, Pakistan needs a 'kick in the pants' in the form of an end to US aid and IMF loans to highlight the incompetence of the current political elite, or force them to implement reforms to cover the revenue shortfall. Pakistan has the economic base and resources to generate more than what it currently takes in annually from aid and loans. Just reforming/privatizing the largest public sector companies would save Pakistani taxpayers $3 billion annually - that is how much they lose every year and the taxpayer has to cover. Raising the taxpayer ratio even a little bit over the 8% it is currently would net significant revenues as well.
Pakistan does not need aid, it needs reforms, and the view of many Pakistanis, including myself, is that US aid and loans are preventing those reforms by artificially keeping the country afloat and covering its revenue shortfalls.
*That "aid" is also keeping Pakistans military afloat, otherwise we all know whats going to happen. It will no doubt become a terrorist led country and with no money to fight it it will stay that way and draw increasing attacks from countries who are attacked by terrorists living within those borders. Of that you can be sure.
Don't base public opinion on what you read in the English language Pakistani papers - they represent a minority. IMF loans are extremely unpopular in Pakistan, and the loss of US aid will barely make a ripple when attached to rhetoric of 'we no longer owe the US anything and the US has limited influence over Pakistan'.
You can say that all you want but you also know what will happen if it looses that aid. Do you honestly think that although a nuclear power that this will stave off countries from incursions on your soil to kill those that kill others across the borders. If you do then your only fooling yourself because it wont. It would take decades for Pakistan to stand on its own and repay that money and during that time even more terrorist organizations will flurish within your borders and if the ISI is not gutted then you could only hope things get better for the people. All the while the ISI is making deals.
This is not mere bravado - this is a very serious and significant school of thought in Pakistan, that the current US-Pakistan relationship based on aid is unsustainable, transactional and counterproductive. IMO, the US has refused Pakistani requests since 2001 for greater trade access, civilian nuclear cooperation and any tangible strategic cooperation or relationship precisely because it wants Pakistan dependent upon US aid and IMF loans in order to retain influence over the country.
Why would we want to improve things for you when your governemnt and ISI cannot be trusted and there are concrete reasons as to why. How do you think the taxpayers of the US would feel if they did and Bin Laden still had to be taken down in this fashion and their Troops and partners still being targeted by groups within your borders and cooperation with your officials. I can see why we say no, can you?]
Despite all the rhetoric of 'long term strategic relationship' out of the political leadership of both sides, the fact is that there is nothing 'long term' or 'strategic' about the relationship - it is short term and transactional, based on the promise of aid in exchange for Counter terrorism cooperation.
So you want something for nothing, irregardless to the fact that terroroists within your borders are left to breed, train and attack those outside your borders as well as those trying to rebuild war torn countries across your borders.
Why do you just plain out say that we need your aid to breed and train those that train and support groups that will kill yours and other countries troops.
In a nutshell thats exactly whats being said. It wouldnt matter one bit if the US pulled its aid, you would still allow these groups to exist becuase of a convienance.
Share this thread with friends: