What's new

NATO Summit: Pakistan Offers No Quarter

Senate panel votes to cut aid for Pakistan, Egypt

WASHINGTON: In a fresh warning to Pakistan, a Senate panel on Tuesday approved a foreign aid budget for next year that slashes US assistance to Islamabad by more than half and threatens further reductions if it fails to open supply routes to Nato forces in Afghanistan.

The Senate Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations also cut aid to Iraq, Egypt and Afghanistan while adding $50 million for Jordan to help it handle the influx of refugees from a violent Syria.

By voice vote, the panel approved the overall bill totaling $52.1 billion, which is $2.6 billion less than what President Barack Obama requested for the 2013 fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 and $1.2 billion below current spending. The full Appropriations Committee meets Thursday to give its final approval to the bill.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat and the chairman of the subcommittee, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham, said money for Pakistan was cut 58 per cent as lawmakers question Islamabad’s commitment to the fight against terrorism and as resentment lingers on Capitol Hill a year after Osama bin Laden was killed deep inside Pakistan.

Tensions have increased as Pakistan closed overland supply routes to Afghanistan after a US attack on the Pakistani side of the border killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in November.

”We’re not adding to the money in the pipeline, but we’re going to basically take all of the money out of the pipeline if we can’t get these routes open because we’re not going to invest in a country that won’t help us in a reasonable way to deal with the threats to our forces in Afghanistan,” Graham told reporters after the panel’s vote.

The bill would provide $1 billion in aid to Pakistan, including $184 million for State Department operations and $800 million for foreign assistance. The panel also imposed various restrictions on the money.

The panel also cut money for Iraq by 77 per cent, citing the deteriorating security situation there. The bill would provide $1.1 billion for Iraq, including $582 million in foreign assistance but no money for the police development program.

”Because the Iraqi police training program has not progressed as hoped, and our relations with Pakistan have been stalled for months, Sen. Graham and I have not used $881 million that the full committee initially recommended for the subcommittee. That is money we are saving the taxpayers,” Leahy said.

The panel also cut $5 million from the $250 million in economic assistance for Egypt. Graham said it equaled the amount the US spent to get non-government workers out earlier this year, including Sam LaHood, son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. ”We got our money back,” Graham said. The remaining aid, totaling more than $1.2 billion, is conditioned on Cairo adhering to the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and conducting an orderly transition to civilian control.

Funds for Afghanistan were cut 28 per cent to $3.5 billion to reflect that the Afghans are taking a greater lead in the country and the United States is reducing its civilian and military presence.

The Senate version of the bill must be reconciled with the House version that totals about $48 billion, including $8 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Senate Panel, Washington, aid for Pakistan, US assistance to Islamabad, Nato forces, Supply routes to Nato forces, Afghanistan, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan-US ties, President Barack Obama, Islamabad, Overseas Contingency Operations in Iraq, US aid to Pakistan, Sen. Patrick Leahy

Senate panel votes to cut aid for Pakistan, Egypt

WASHINGTON: In a fresh warning to Pakistan, a Senate panel on Tuesday approved a foreign aid budget for next year that slashes US assistance to Islamabad by more than half and threatens further reductions if it fails to open supply routes to Nato forces in Afghanistan.

The Senate Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations also cut aid to Iraq, Egypt and Afghanistan while adding $50 million for Jordan to help it handle the influx of refugees from a violent Syria.

By voice vote, the panel approved the overall bill totaling $52.1 billion, which is $2.6 billion less than what President Barack Obama requested for the 2013 fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 and $1.2 billion below current spending. The full Appropriations Committee meets Thursday to give its final approval to the bill.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat and the chairman of the subcommittee, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham, said money for Pakistan was cut 58 per cent as lawmakers question Islamabad’s commitment to the fight against terrorism and as resentment lingers on Capitol Hill a year after Osama bin Laden was killed deep inside Pakistan.

Tensions have increased as Pakistan closed overland supply routes to Afghanistan after a US attack on the Pakistani side of the border killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in November.

”We’re not adding to the money in the pipeline, but we’re going to basically take all of the money out of the pipeline if we can’t get these routes open because we’re not going to invest in a country that won’t help us in a reasonable way to deal with the threats to our forces in Afghanistan,” Graham told reporters after the panel’s vote.

The bill would provide $1 billion in aid to Pakistan, including $184 million for State Department operations and $800 million for foreign assistance. The panel also imposed various restrictions on the money.

The panel also cut money for Iraq by 77 per cent, citing the deteriorating security situation there. The bill would provide $1.1 billion for Iraq, including $582 million in foreign assistance but no money for the police development program.

”Because the Iraqi police training program has not progressed as hoped, and our relations with Pakistan have been stalled for months, Sen. Graham and I have not used $881 million that the full committee initially recommended for the subcommittee. That is money we are saving the taxpayers,” Leahy said.


The panel also cut $5 million from the $250 million in economic assistance for Egypt. Graham said it equaled the amount the US spent to get non-government workers out earlier this year, including Sam LaHood, son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. ”We got our money back,” Graham said. The remaining aid, totaling more than $1.2 billion, is conditioned on Cairo adhering to the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and conducting an orderly transition to civilian control.

Funds for Afghanistan were cut 28 per cent to $3.5 billion to reflect that the Afghans are taking a greater lead in the country and the United States is reducing its civilian and military presence.

The Senate version of the bill must be reconciled with the House version that totals about $48 billion, including $8 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Senate panel votes to cut aid for Pakistan, Egypt | DAWN.COM

There is no such thing as free money from friends. Especially countries. They do what is best for their respective lands. Its time to realize that America is not the care taker of the world, even if they say they are. Their interests lie in self preservation first and foremost as it should be for any other country. Iraq has slowly become a lost cause for the Americans with their loud rhetoric about never quitting. Its not difficult to see that after this draw down we will not be getting anything of value from our allies. And rightly so.
 
. .
Its pretty plain and simple.. If USA will incur addnl cost for shipments via NDN, that money will come out of the aid being given by them to Pakistan... International relations 101
 
.
Pakistan should collect taxes it' citizens owe it and not aid from the hard working, tax paying public of others countries. Once Pakistan's venal "bai-man" (without Emaan, without faith in Pakistan) elite understand there is no rent to collect from the West, Pakistanis may then begin to fashion policies that further the "dignity" of the Pakistani public and of those who choose to engage them.
 
.
Thank you. You can remove the indian flag from you location, high level of intellect in your post like most of other indian memebrs posts is good enough indication to the country you belong. Never mind if it passes above your head.


I am really surprised with the marde monim mentality. Arey bhaiya, does Pakistan actually have any quartwr to give? Pakistan is currently asking for a certain sum of money. They earlier were getting money for their services but now they think that the money was not enough to cover insurance for events like salala and the army wants more CS Funds now. So where is Pakistan actually giving?? Fanboys!!!!

BTW, Who allowed each container for 250 bucks !! This is a disgrace to a sovereign country, if Pak considers itself one. Stand up now or what ?

Mushy the commando.

Its pretty plain and simple.. If USA will incur addnl cost for shipments via NDN, that money will come out of the aid being given by them to Pakistan... International relations 101

If there was any real aid, as much as they calim to be giving, then it is definitely a profitable trade off gor them, why are they cribbing then?

so you mean to suggest not one thieve/corrupt conducts the polices, but a WHOLE GROUP of thieves and corrupt people? Wow, thanks for letting me know! :rofl:

Now I seriously believe i have been talking to a teen age or a total illitrate in terms of how governments are run.
 
.
Pakistan should collect taxes it' citizens owe it and not aid from the hard working, tax paying public of others countries. Once Pakistan's venal "bai-man" (without Emaan, without faith in Pakistan) elite understand there is no rent to collect from the West, Pakistanis may then begin to fashion policies that further the "dignity" of the Pakistani public and of those who choose to engage them.

Its so nice to see you after a long time sir, hope u have been well and fine. Plz do keep posting miss ur posts a lot.
 
.
Its pretty plain and simple.. If USA will incur addnl cost for shipments via NDN, that money will come out of the aid being given by them to Pakistan... International relations 101

Yes we understand that and have absolutely no problems with it. We would rather have them pay transit instead of handing out billion dollars bribe to our politicians and army sugar coated as 'aid'.
 
.
Hurray!!! best thing that can happen to Pakistan.

The best thing that can happen to forum pakistanis and others who actually are not actually responsible for managing the nation's fiscal policies.
 
.

china's objective is a stable and prosperous afghanistan to do business with. but china's paramount objective in afghanistan is to ensure pakistani dominance there that can eradicate anglo-american-jewish-indian infiltration. and china has in the past decade subjugated the first objective to the second and will continue to do the same.

our diplomats in the west have spoken repeatedly of the first when travelling to the west, but higher up in both china and pakistan china's real position is well known.
 
. .
Pakistan should collect taxes it' citizens owe it and not aid from the hard working, tax paying public of others countries. Once Pakistan's venal "bai-man" (without Emaan, without faith in Pakistan) elite understand there is no rent to collect from the West, Pakistanis may then begin to fashion policies that further the "dignity" of the Pakistani public and of those who choose to engage them.

indeed, a country cant relay on foreign "aid" when in most cases such aid has other unstated motives too. secondly its a shame that the West in these current times thinks that aiding other countries is a good idea in the times of austerity , lack of growth and unemployment.

Agricultrual tax is one aspect that can help us in addition to other industries but when the policy makers themselves are stakeholders these industries then the conflict of interest will mean that the only tax payers will be the salaried people of Pakistan.
 
.
Pakistan should collect taxes it' citizens owe it and not aid from the hard working, tax paying public of others countries. Once Pakistan's venal "bai-man" (without Emaan, without faith in Pakistan) elite understand there is no rent to collect from the West, Pakistanis may then begin to fashion policies that further the "dignity" of the Pakistani public and of those who choose to engage them.

welcome back Muse. Missed your wit and comments. Look forward to more of the same.

Agree with your post 100%. Pakistan needs to address this issue internally
 
.
Yes we understand that and have absolutely no problems with it. We would rather have them pay transit instead of handing out billion dollars bribe to our politicians and army sugar coated as 'aid'.

Fair point.. But if the Politicians and army are so corrupt, then how does it matter which way the dollars come in.. They will only go to the pockets of the corrupt establishment..
 
.
In my books blinking = opening the routes. period. I wouldn't have opened the routes for money, apology - not without the cessation of drone strikes. So by 'when', if we blink after the costs, apology and cessation of drone strikes then its good.

I have to be realistic in my comments given the players we have fielded... When is good too, since if they drag it to the winter, the northern route won't look so pretty again.

Now that serious negotiations are underway, dragging the closure into the winter will not really yield anything more for Pakistan.

Also, are you for complete cessation of the drone strikes, or do you agree with AM that what Pakistan has wanted all along is an end to "unilateral" drone strikes, with the proviso that "joint" drone strikes might still be okay?

Asim, where do our brother ally, China, stand on the issue of opening the routes for NATO? I think we should be mindful of the bigger picture.

China will be more amenable to yielding to the US view on Afghanistan side of things for certain concessions in the South China Sea if it comes to that. I don't think Pakistan can count on unconditional support on this issue.
 
.
Now that serious negotiations are underway, dragging the closure into the winter will not really yield anything more for Pakistan.
They can agree to our terms earlier than that and we won't drag it unnecessarily.

Also, are you for complete cessation of the drone strikes, or do you agree with AM that what Pakistan has wanted all along is an end to "unilateral" drone strikes, with the proviso that "joint" drone strikes might still be okay?
I am generally anti-war but pro-selective missions. But any military action on Pakistani soil, pakistani airspace has to be via Pakistani authorities under the mandate of the Pakistani elected government. No involvement of outsiders in target selection or firing missiles. If drones can do a better job to aid Pakistani missions and they are operated by Pakistanis end to end then I don't have anything against the technology - if that's what you were asking.

China will be more amenable to yielding to the US view on Afghanistan side of things for certain concessions in the South China Sea if it comes to that. I don't think Pakistan can count on unconditional support on this issue.
SCS and Drone strikes are like oil and water. Lekin aap ideas de doh, hasbe-rawayat.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom