Pak-US relations Complexities & Challenges

[Safriz]

U.S. Aid to Pakistan – Time for a (new) strategy
Written by Alicia Mollaun on July 4, 2011
This is a guest post by Alicia Mollaun

The Centre for Global Development’s (CGD) June 2011 report Beyond Bullets and Bombs: Fixing the U.S. Approach to Development in Pakistan reopens the debate on aid effectiveness in Pakistan. The report very convincingly sets out the problems with the United States’ current aid policy in Pakistan. It then equally as convincingly argues that the United States should not wash its hands of Pakistan yet, but should alter its aid policy and give Pakistan another chance.
Because aid should help fix Pakistan’s multiple problems, shouldn’t it?
Aid can help assist Pakistan to develop solutions to its multiple development challenges. It needs foreign aid and technical assistance from international donors. Currently, the United States is one of the largest aid donors to Pakistan. However, the problem with its current aid policy, as set out in the Kerry-Lugar Bill (or Enhanced Partnership Act with Pakistan Act 2009), is that it tries to do too much. Just reading through the Bill leaves the impression that the U.S. will march in, spend money, and everything will be fixed, from improving governance and the rule of law to investing in energy and ensuring workers rights.
Too many objectives has left Pakistan (and many in the U.S.) confused about what the U.S is doing in Pakistan – how much is it spending, what is it achieving and why does it matter?
A lack of clarity around what the U.S. is doing with its aid program in Pakistan may be one reason why the ‘should we or shouldn’t we give aid to Pakistan’ debate has reared its head in the United States. Politicians on both sides of politics are questioning whether Pakistan deserves U.S. aid and assistance.
These questions have intensified in light of the debates that ‘Osama bin Laden was hiding out in Pakistan the whole time’ and ‘we have a trillion dollar deficit at home’.
At the same time, many Pakistanis are also calling for their government to stop taking U.S. aid – one of the loudest being cricketer turned political leader, Imran Khan. The reality is, however, that Pakistan will be dependent on foreign aid for years to come unless it starts to undertake some serious economic reform given its abysmal ability to collect its own revenue.
So what is the United States to do? Two years on from the passage of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, the Centre for Global Development rightly points out that ‘the new U.S. approach cannot yet boast a coherent set of focused development priorities or the organisation and tools to manage and adjust those priorities as conditions require’.
The CGD report lists five priorities for the U.S. Government: clarify the mission; name a leader of the U.S. aid program in Islamabad and Washington; tell people what the U.S. is doing; staff the USAID mission for success; and more effectively measure Pakistan’s overall development program.
These five steps are all important for a successful development program. It is worrying that these steps have not been implemented fully given the scope of the USAID program and the quantum of funding attached.
The U.S. needs to start somewhere. Expanding upon the CGD’s recommendation to ‘tell people what the U.S. is doing in Pakistan’, three things need to happen in the short-term to improve outcomes and perceptions of the U.S. aid program – and these are all linked to better utilising public diplomacy.
First, the U.S. needs to simplify its aid objectives for Pakistan. The CGD is right in saying that the U.S. needs to prioritise and make clearer its objectives for aid. Unclear objectives are problematic for two reasons: (a) the U.S. bureaucracy in Washington and Islamabad do not have a clear policy mandate, making it difficult for aid to be delivered seamlessly and in a timely fashion; and (b) if the U.S. doesn’t know what the point of its aid is, how can they expect the Pakistani’s to? Of the many economic and security objectives of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, the U.S. needs to select just a few that it can focus on. Currently, the aid program is aiming to do everything for everyone, which is unsustainable in the long term.
Second, the U.S. must recognise that the success of its aid program rests not only on improving development indicators but also by promoting the aid program to the Pakistani elite and pubic. This can be achieved through a strategic public diplomacy campaign. This will be a tough ask, but an important one. Effective public diplomacy relies on a government’s credibility to get its message across and the U.S. is in short supply of credibility in Pakistan. A recent Pew Survey highlighted how difficult a task it will be to get Pakistan to recognise U.S. aid, let alone appreciate it. 18 per cent of Pakistani’s surveyed by Pew in 2011 believed that the U.S. provided little or no foreign aid to Pakistan, while around one quarter of those surveyed had no idea if or how much aid the U.S. provides. These statistics must be alarming for the United States, which has pledged $7.5 billion (2009-14) in civilian aid to Pakistan.
Third, the U.S. must demonstrate credibly that it is committed to a long-term focus on aid in Pakistan. Pakistan is fixated on the fact that once the U.S. leaves Afghanistan, it will leave Pakistan. Again. This paranoia feeds conspiracy theories about why the U.S. is engaging in Pakistan in the first place.
Conspiracies and paranoia can be contagious. In Pakistan it will be hard work to reverse negative sentiments of the United States. However, there is still time to be proactive about domestic sentiments in the United States about Pakistan. There is a growing anti-Pakistanism in the U.S. which is promoting the message that it should reduce or cut its aid program to Pakistan because it ‘harboured bin Laden, harbours terrorists, has nuclear weapons etc. etc.,’ which feeds Pakistan’s uncertainty that the U.S. will leave it in the lurch. Feelings of mutual antipathy will be harmful to U.S. long-term objectives in Pakistan.
The CGD presents a clear and comprehensive set of recommendations for what the U.S. needs to do to improve its development strategy in Pakistan. Hopefully, those in politics and the bureaucracy will read it with interest and realise that clear aid objectives and patience are vital to success in Pakistan.
Policymakers should prioritise improving the United State’s image in Pakistan during every aspect of its engagement. An easy place to start would be promoting what the U.S. is doing through its aid program.
Alicia Mollaun is currently a PHD candidate in public policy at the Crawford School currently conducting research on public perceptions of U.S. aid to Pakistan. Prior to commencing her PhD, Alicia was an adviser at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

 

[LURKER]

“There are several significant [al Qaeda] leaders still on the run. (Ayman al) Zawahiri who inherited the leadership from (Osama) bin Laden is somewhere, we believe, in Pakistan. So we are intent upon going after those who are trying to keep al Qaeda operational and inspirational.” Thus spake the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to an Indian channel in Kolkata just before departing for New Delhi.
We responded by saying that if the US has any information on the whereabouts of Zawahiri, it should share that intelligence with us. Sounds rational, except there’s a slight problem: the US will share nothing with Pakistan. If and when it has triangulated Zawahiri’s presence somewhere in Pakistan, depending on the operational requirement, and choosing the modus operandi on that basis, it will move in and take him out — unilaterally. Period.
What about Pakistan’s sovereignty, international law and the UN charter? Pakistan can put all of it in a pipe and smoke it.
What about GLOC (ground line of communication)? The US wants Pakistan to open it. The closure does create problems for it but it doesn’t bring the US-Nato-ISAF operations inside Afghanistan to a halt. There’s the ALOC, air line of communication, expensive, tedious and long. But deeper pockets can take care of that. The US and allies would still need the GLOC for carrying equipment back but hopefully by then Pakistan will have been coerced into opening it.
This was Pakistan’s trump. Pakistan has played it even though in any game of brinkmanship one should never play one’s trump. The trump has been trumped, no value added, and Pakistan has pushed itself into a corner in its relations with the United States.
Pakistan has a litany of complaints against the US; the US has an equally long list of complaints against Pakistan. In such a situation, the more powerful side carries the narrative and makes it stick. That’s exactly what has happened. The US complaints get a world audience; the US is leading a pack of nations; most, if not all, also share its concerns and threat perceptions. Even those who might not always support its approach agree on two things: there is a terrorist threat that needs to be neutralised and the epicentre of it is in Pakistan’s ‘badlands’.
Pakistan can beat its chest and lament about how unfairly it is being treated by the US but that narrative dies down within Pakistan, and in any case, is mostly pooh-poohed outside Pakistan. Even within, the civil-military divide ensures that no one believes a word of what the army or the ISI says. Add to this other troubles, most significant being the non-acceptance of the state of Pakistan itself by many Pakistanis and we have a situation ideally suited for external forces to exploit.
It should surprise no one that the US is now pursuing a policy of making Pakistan irrelevant to an Afghan settlement and, if need be, bringing the war more actively to Pakistan. The trajectory has taken Pakistan from being a US ally to frenemy and, if the current situation continues to deteriorate, would possibly see it become an overt enemy.
The US has also, over the years, put in place an elaborate spy network in Pakistan. It has been conducting special operations and has upstaged Pakistani intelligence agencies, including the ISI, in their own backyard. It was quite pathetic how an unnamed ISI official was trying to act hurt by the fact that while it was the ISI that gave the lead on Bin Laden to the CIA, the Americans kept the ISI out of the loop. Tough luck fella.
The Americans learn even when they learn the hard way. But when they do, they do a pretty thorough job of it. As the most powerful state in the world which will retain that position in the foreseeable future, America should be expected to do whatever it can to protect both its core and peripheral interests. And it will strike back too when it finds any state or non-state entity trying to thwart its plans.
In statecraft this is legitimate. If a state wants to stand up to a bigger, more powerful state, it should either have equally strong backing or it should acquire the wherewithal for such a contest itself. Pakistan has neither. The deeper irony is that while Pakistan relied all these decades on American largesse — civil and military — to stand up to India, it is today in an unenviable position of trying to normalise with India just as its relations with the US are nosediving.
But woe betide anyone who thinks that India will let go of this opportunity. Just like the US, India too wants a pliable Pakistan. A Pakistan that resolves all the existing disputes on India’s terms, whose military cannot challenge India, and which offers India the space the latter requires to project its soft and hard power in the region and beyond. Yes, beyond, because it is in the nature of power to project itself and India is no exception to that rule.
So, while India is happy to see Pakistan normalising relations with it, it will continue to exert pressure, in tandem with the US and the rest of the world, to shape Pakistan. This too, as statecraft goes, is legitimate.
What are Pakistan’s choices? Near-zero. The state’s legitimacy is challenged from inside; the state’s ability to influence events in the region has dwindled to almost nothing; the state has no capacity to project its narrative; the rightwing is working against it by isolating it from the rest of the world; the left-liberals consider it a security state that needs to be reshaped in line with the narrative that comes from the outside.
And now, the commitment trap. If the US doesn’t apologise, GLOC won’t be opened. The US won’t. Pakistan won’t get invited to the Chicago summit. Neither side wants it to get worse. Both are committed to their courses of action. The US has more choices. It can now go solo in Afghanistan and also coerce Pakistan. Pakistan’s strategic assets, geography etcetera, are now its liabilities.
The ball’s in Pakistan’s court.

The ball

 

[somebozo]

Most of these leaders happen to be Arabs and the silences form their home countries is deafening. They haven't even said a word in Pakistani support even just for the sake of cosmetic lip service..

Osama Binladen = Saudi
Ayman al-Zawahiri = Egyptian
Saif al-Adel = Egyptian
Abu Zubaydah = Saudi
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi = Jordanian
Abu Ayyub al-Masri = Egyptian
Atiyah Abd al-Rahman = Libyan
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed = Kuwaiti Pakistani

 

[Dance]

LONDON: The United Kingdom Thursday vowed to build on a deeper and stronger relationship with Pakistan saying its future matters greatly to Britain and agreed on building up ties in trade, defence, health and education sectors.

Prime Minister David Cameron after a meeting with Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani categorically stated that the United Kingdom will be an enduring friend to the government and people of Pakistan.

“Both countries are committed to working together as equals to create the conditions for greater prosperity and security in Pakistan and the UK,” a joint statement issued at the end of the talks said.

Prime Minister Gilani and Cameron discussed trade, economic growth and development, cultural co-operation, security and education at 10 Downing Street and reviewed the progress being made since the two leaders made the commitment in April 2011 in Islamabad for a deeper and broader dialogue between the two countries.

The dialogue is aimed at strengthening friendship and promoting mutual prosperity and security. The two leaders also took into account the global economic crisis and agreed that it requires both the countries to make tough decisions to deliver future growth and prosperity. It was also agreed to have a regular dialogue between the governments on economic reform.

Prime Minister Gilani and David Cameron also discussed the shared national security challenges and the cooperation in counter-terrorism.

They reviewed the outcome of the meeting of the Joint Working Group which met in October and the National Security Discussions between the civilian and military experts in this regard.

Prime Minister Cameron acknowledged the huge sacrifices by the people of Pakistan and said the UK stands along Pakistan, as a partner against the menace of militancy, terrorism and extremism.

Gilani said the UK and Pakistan enjoy unique people-to-people links with over one million British citizens with close family ties to Pakistan.

Prime Minister Gilani said Pakistan and the UK are bound together by longstanding ties based on shared history, values and rich people-to-people links.

A Joint Statement issued after the First Annual Summit of the UK-Pakistan Enhanced Strategic Dialogue noted that since its launch in 2011 the dialogue between the UK and Pakistan has become deeper and broader.

The two prime ministers reviewed the practical co-operation on shared interests which has intensified across the five areas covered under dialogue; including trade, economic growth and development, cultural co-operation, security and education.

Prime Minister Gilani and Prime Minister Cameron also launched a Trade and Investment Roadmap, setting out the steps both governments will take to promote investment, support business and achieve the target of increasing bilateral trade to $2.5 billion by 2015.

Both Prime Ministers urged UK companies to look at the opportunities the Pakistan market presents and build on the success of the over 100 UK-based companies already doing business in Pakistan.

Prime Minister Gilani pledged his government’s full support in ensuring an enabling business environment to attract and sustain UK trade with, and investment in Pakistan.

Gilani also expressed appreciation for the UK’s consistent support to Pakistan for enhanced market access to the European Union. He hoped that the UK would continue to support Pakistan’s request for GSP and early finalisation of Autonomous Trade Preferences package.

Prime Minister Cameron assured UK’s continued support in this regard, and also encouraged Pakistani businesses to look at the opportunities the UK offers and its role as a gateway to Europe.

Under the Economics and Development field, the two prime ministers noted that the global economic crisis requires both countries to make tough decisions in order to deliver future growth and prosperity.

On Security and Defence, both Pakistan and the UK evinced an unwavering commitment to work together to combat the menace of terrorism and extremism.

UK pledges deeper, stronger relationship with Pakistan | DAWN.COM

 

[F.O.X]

US Congress placed new limitations on Pakistan for reimbursement of counterinsurgency support funds.


The Armed Services Committee of the US Congress has approved the National Defense Authorization Act 2013 worth $642 billion, including new limitations on security assistance to Pakistan, on Thursday by a 56-5 majority vote.

The bill includes military and defense-related assistance by the United States to foreign countries including Pakistan. It places some additional limitations on Pakistan for reimbursement of the counterinsurgency support funds. The resumption of NATO supply routes have been made part of the bill, in order to enable to US administration to release the Coalition Support Fund (CSF) to Pakistan.

In the approved draft, The US Secretary of Defense has been asked to submit a report in the Congress about any new mechanism adopted by Pakistan for use of NATO supply routes and the difference in cost incurred from last year. Action against IEDs, a long-standing demand of the US administration and lawmakers, besides prevention of proliferation of nuclear-related material is also required from Pakistan in the bill.

The US Secretary Defense is also required to certify that Pakistan is supporting US counter-terrorism efforts against Al Qaeda and Haqqani network, as well as other domestic and foreign terrorist organizations (which have not been named in the draft). The bill also wants timely issuance of visas from Pakistan for the US officials involved in counterterrorism and assistance programmes in Pakistan.

Not more than 10 percent of the funds allocated to Pakistan could be disbursed before the submission of report by Secretary Defense. Other than supply routes, action against IEDs and Haqqani network, other conditions were in the bill during previous years as well for provision of coalition support fund (CSF) to Pakistan, which was first instituted in 2003.

"The bill places appropriate conditions on aid to Pakistan. It is imperative that Pakistan support our counterterrorism efforts and work to prevent the interdiction of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to Afghanistan," House Armed Services Committee s Ranking Member, Adam Smith said during the hearing.

The bill has recommended reduction in the overall security assistance to foreign countries by nine (09) percent, as part of the strategy to reduce Pentagon budget. The bill will now be tabled on the floor of Congress for voting next week. Congress has a Republican majority, which is in opposition in US at the moment. After Congress, it will be tabled in Senate, where Democrats are in majority.

The bill only becomes law after it is approved by the Senate and signed by the US president. Other provisions related to sanctions against Iran, war operations in Afghanistan, additional funding for drone operations and placing a bar for transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to US are also part of the bill.

- Contributed by Awais Saleem, Dunya News correspondent in Washington, DC

US has decided against inviting Pakistan to the forthcoming NATO summit in Chicago.


Pakistan s chances of attending the forthcoming NATO summit in Chicago, on May 20 and 21, have almost died down following a deadlock in Pak-US relations. Both countries have adopted tough positions on their respective demands and a resolution in the immediate future appears highly improbable.

The US administration had previously termed Pakistan s participation in the Chicago summit as critical for the endgame in Afghanistan. Several American officials had repeatedly urged the Pakistani leadership to participate in the Chicago summit for lasting peace and stability in the region.

However, the expectations on both sides took a nosedive when bilateral relations hit a new low following the NATO attack on Salala check-post on November 26 last year, which resulted in killing 24 Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan suspended the NATO supply routes in protest and has demanded an apology from the US for resumption of these routes.

It is reliably learnt that the US special representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Marc Grossman has made an effort to convince Pakistan for resuming NATO supply routes and attend the Chicago summit. The remaining contentious issues, he advocated, could be discussed simultaneously as the US was ready to listen and address "genuine" Pakistani concerns.

However, the talks reached a stalemate when the Pakistani leadership, following the extensive parliamentary review, conveyed to the US administration in plain words that nothing short of an apology on the Salala incident was acceptable before moving forward on rebuilding trust and bilateral relationship.

Even the offer made by Marc Grossman for releasing Pakistan s outstanding Coalition Support Fund (CSF) worth $1.2 billion, which has been withheld since December 2010, in case the country agreed to re-open supply routes, could not achieve the desired ends.

Following this apparent deadlock, the US administration has decided against inviting Pakistan to the Chicago summit, in a bid to covey its displeasure on the latter s reluctance to succumb to the American demands. The other purpose of this decision, sources informed, was to make Pakistan realize that critical decisions on Afghanistan could be taken even without Pakistan s participation.

The spokesperson of the US State Department, Victoria Nuland played down the question of inviting Pakistan to Chicago summit. "The guest list is still something that we’re working on, particularly in the context of the ISAF meeting, which will have a larger participation", she stated while declining to comment when asked about their administration s expectations about Pakistani participation.

In an earlier briefing, US Special Representative to NATO, Ivo Daalder, termed Pakistan a very important country for the stability of the region and including Afghanistan. He was responding to a question regarding importance of Pakistan’s participation in the NATO summit as well as the endgame in Afghanistan.

"The issue of which countries are going to be coming to Chicago is still under discussion at NATO, and we hope and expect that those issues will be resolved soon", Ambassador Daalder said while going to discuss the suspension of ground supply routes, invariably establishing a correlation between the two.

"As you know, we are in active bilateral consultations as well with a NATO participation in those consultations on finding ways to open the ground lines of communication through Pakistan into Afghanistan, which have now been closed for about six months," he pointed out.

"Opening up these ground lines is extremely important for the stability of Afghanistan and the ability for our troops in Afghanistan to have the kinds of resupply of resources that is necessary. Those negotiations are ongoing and we hope they can be completed successfully very soon," the US envoy hoped.

- Contributed by Awais Saleem, Dunya News correspondent in Washington, DC

US ensures provision of 1b dollars of CSF after supply resumption.


According to Dunya News, Britain has pressurized Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani to resume the NATO supply. Meanwhile, the US government has stated that if Pakistan opens the NATO supply route it will issue one billion dollars from the Coalition Support Fund.

It is worth mentioning here that the US suspended 1.2 billion dollars of the Coalition Support Fund for Pakistan two years ago.

When federal Minister for Finance Abdul Hafeez Shaikh visited US to discuss fund’s issue, the American authorities told him that the US was ready to issue the funds if Pakistan resumes NATO supply, even with the increased charges.

The finance minister is reported to have briefed the civil and military leadership about the situation after his return to Pakistan.

Hafeez Shaikh was also in favour of opening the supply route. He said Pakistan should respond to the US offer positively because he was facing difficulties in the preparation of upcoming budget.

Ahh The Irony of Friendship with America , When you think for your own benefit & not that of US , you suddenly become a Problem.

As soon as we can get out of the Web of US the batter it will be for us.

Someone said True Words for a Friend Like Us .

"if You have Friend's like these , you have no need for an enemy "

 

[VCheng]

....................
As soon as we can get out of the Web of US the batter it will be for us.
...................."

Assuming it is not cake "batter" you refer to, getting out of the US "web" is possible only extra-terrestrially (wait, extra-solar systemly is more like it). How do you propose achieving that? It may be better to learn how to interact more productively with USA without developing a persecution complex that the whole world is out to get Pakistan.

 

[Chung wah]

I dont think this would be the situation. Guess, pakisthan is still a democratic country. but if this happens, can anyone highlight what are the nations which would stand by pakisthan and help them?

 

[Ignited Mind]

First of all, make up your mind.

Are they coming to you to fight or are you inviting them to hit you?

It's a hyperpower for God's sake what the hell do you think you can do to it?

Your whole economy will literally sink if they so much as told the Europeans to tighten the noose on your exports.

You have been very lucky so far that your Generals have been handy in killing their troops and have almost always got away with it.

How long do you seriously think you can do this to a hyper-power without seriously hoping to get thrashed?

 

[CarbonD]

I dont think this would be the situation. Guess, pakisthan is still a democratic country. but if this happens, can anyone highlight what are the nations which would stand by pakisthan and help them?

no one officially but unofficially: UAE, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Gulf states, Turkey and so on

 

[H1ndustaN1]

I gotta respect the courage some of the chest-thumping Pak posters tend to show on the forum here. But we need a realistic appraisal of the situation as well. US-Pak relations have been spiraling downhill rapidly and I believe they have even considered invading Pakistan before. The only thing averting that situation is the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons which are better off in the hands of a stable Pakistan army than a fragmented bunch of militants fighting between themselves. But don't count on the US not being able to work around this or come up with other ways to hit at Pak though. Just the daily drone strikes goes to show how much they really respect Pak's territorial integrity. And you guys are not being helpful by being stubborn either.

 

[Riz]

shut the airtrafic for this fvking country they are and never will be our friend they will keep saying do more do more and on the other side they will keep arming indians.

 

[user1]

no one officially but unofficially: UAE, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Gulf states, Turkey and so on

Add to that list S.Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Sri Lanka, Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia and so on.

 

[CarbonD]

Add to that list S.Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Sri Lanka, Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia and so on.

ah not Iran, Sri Lanka and Malaysia the rest I can agree.
Typical Iranians disregards pakistanis and think low of them they are not going to support Pakistan due to US troops in Pakistan

 

[Irfan Baloch]

I am sorry, based on the quoted articles I dont see any evidence that US is going to invade Pakistan. what is clear is that there are challenges and complexities in this relationship (or lack of it). if anything was going to happen it would have happened ages ago.

despite everything both countries find it more beneficial to avoid hostilities. from neutral perspective both have valid misgivings about each other. since the disparity in both countries in terms of power and influence is so huge among the two countries that the weaker party is normally on the receiving side. This once again reminds me of the videos I posted of interviews of Dr Maliha Lodhi, the challenge is finding the common ground and presenting Pakistani case in a manner which is coherent and upfront but also sincere and there is no doubt that Americans will respond positively.

The clueless leadership and foreign policy has left the yanks with no choice but to be almost dismissive of us and taking the decisions for us which appear to be against our interests. Getting our act together will only help us avoid any dooms day scenario portrayed on regular bases. I am not browning my nose for the Yanks but saying it for our own sake, if you like you can have a look at the interview of Lodhi.

Focus on the gist of the discussion, you and I might not agree on everything she and other participants say but the crux is having an able leadership of Pakistan that can project Pakistan’s PoV and safeguard its interests in an effective manner.

 

[VCheng]

.................
The clueless leadership and foreign policy has left the yanks with no choice but to be almost dismissive of us and taking the decisions for us which appear to be against our interests. Getting our act together will only help us avoid any dooms day scenario portrayed on regular bases. I am not browning my nose for the Yanks but saying it for our own sake,.................

Exactly correct. And please note that there is NO color of any kind involved in speaking the truth, as you just did.

(BTW, who edited the thread title to a more sane one? Whoever it is, kudos, although it is likely not AM. )