US bill pledges $900m to Pakistan, links half of amount to certification

[Dawood Ibrahim]

WASHINGTON: A consensus US defence bill, set to be approved by the House, recognises Pakistan as a key strategic partner and pledges more than $900 million in economic and other assistance to the country.

But the bill also conditions $450m from this assistance to a certification from the US defence secretary that Pakistan is committed to fighting all terrorist groups, including the Haqqani network.

This year the amount was $300m, which was not released after Secretary Ash Carter refused to certify in Pakistan’s favour.

The US National Defence Authorisation Act for fiscal year 2017 was tentatively scheduled for a vote in the House of Representatives on Friday evening, and in the Senate next week. Since it is a consensus bill, it is unlikely to face any opposition.

The bill notes that “the United States and Pakistan continue to have many critical shared interests, both economic- and security-related, which could be the foundation for a positive and mutually beneficial partnership.”

In a conference report, which combines the House and Senate versions of a legislation, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain also underlined the importance of a continued relationship between the United States and Pakistan.

He noted that the bill “refocuses security assistance to Pakistan on activities that directly support US national security interests”.

But Senator McCain also noted that the bill “conditions a significant portion of funding on a certification from the defence secretary that Pakistan is taking demonstrable steps against the Haqqani network in Pakistani territory”.

After a visit to North Waziristan earlier this year, the senator warned that US and Pakistani leaders “cannot allow ambivalence and suspicion to fester. Common interests in counterterrorism, nuclear security and regional stability are too important and too urgent”.

In the same statement, he noted that “limitations on US assistance to Pakistan and congressional reluctance to approve subsidies for the sale of defence articles have added to tensions between the two governments”.

Published in Dawn December 3rd, 2016

 

[maximuswarrior]

I'm always wondering what economic and other assistance specifically means? Where does all this money get spent?

Other than that, I'm not very fond of US aid in Pakistan. The aid is often used as a tool of blackmail and extortion. We know the Americans use this as their dangling carrot. No country is immune to receiving aid and especially developing countries. However, we need to be careful with US aid because this money is coupled with conditions that are at times undeliverable. The preconditions are also toxic and harmful to Pakistan's interest. By receiving this aid we are essentially signing to a US contract. When we are unable to deliver we get accused of being insincere or incompetent. The aid which in reality amounts to not much should be ignored in my opinion. Pakistan can survive without this aid that inflicts more harm than good.

 

[CriticalThought]

Interesting how towards the end of a Democratic government we get our screws tightened, only for the pressure to be alleviated when the Republicans come into power. Correct me if I am wrong, but this has been cyclical since the times of Bill Clinton.

 

[maximuswarrior]

Interesting how towards the end of a Democratic government we get our screws tightened, only for the pressure to be alleviated when the Republicans come into power. Correct me if I am wrong, but this has been cyclical since the times of Bill Clinton.

John McCain is currently leading the Senate Armed Services Committee. He belongs to the old school Republicans who also shaped the Cold War. These people have directly interacted with Pakistan in the past. They know the ins and outs of this complex relation. Despite much opposition to Pakistan among many quarters in the US, there are still those elements who haven't forgotten our role and contribution during the Cold War. They also understand that a total cut off vis a vis Pakistan won't help their cause.

My opinion is that we need to get our act together and look out for our own interests. If we put all the politics aside for a moment and critically analyze the effect of US aid in Pakistan over the years we will come to a gloomy conclusion. Even the economic aid meant for the development of the people has often not reached its intended recipients. I'm very sceptical.

Pakistan's sole mission and goal is to become self-sufficient in trade and generating economic prosperity. CPEC among others is our mission in achieving this goal. Monetary aid is ancient and toxic. Being a mass recipient of aid shouldn't be our priority anymore. Pakistan should rather focus on its strengths and opportunities which we possesses in abundance with the grace of Almighty.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

WASHINGTON: A consensus US defence bill, set to be approved by the House, recognises Pakistan as a key strategic partner and pledges more than $900 million in economic and other assistance to the country.

But the bill also conditions $450m from this assistance to a certification from the US defence secretary that Pakistan is committed to fighting all terrorist groups, including the Haqqani network.

This year the amount was $300m, which was not released after Secretary Ash Carter refused to certify in Pakistan’s favour.

The US National Defence Authorisation Act for fiscal year 2017 was tentatively scheduled for a vote in the House of Representatives on Friday evening, and in the Senate next week. Since it is a consensus bill, it is unlikely to face any opposition.

The bill notes that “the United States and Pakistan continue to have many critical shared interests, both economic- and security-related, which could be the foundation for a positive and mutually beneficial partnership.”

In a conference report, which combines the House and Senate versions of a legislation, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain also underlined the importance of a continued relationship between the United States and Pakistan.

He noted that the bill “refocuses security assistance to Pakistan on activities that directly support US national security interests”.

But Senator McCain also noted that the bill “conditions a significant portion of funding on a certification from the defence secretary that Pakistan is taking demonstrable steps against the Haqqani network in Pakistani territory”.

After a visit to North Waziristan earlier this year, the senator warned that US and Pakistani leaders “cannot allow ambivalence and suspicion to fester. Common interests in counterterrorism, nuclear security and regional stability are too important and too urgent”.

In the same statement, he noted that “limitations on US assistance to Pakistan and congressional reluctance to approve subsidies for the sale of defence articles have added to tensions between the two governments”.

Published in Dawn December 3rd, 2016

It looks like the lasso is being whirled to have a perfect shot around Iran's neck...

 

[Cash GK]

Pakistan move to Russia and CEPC is forcing USA. other wise american were very mean last time when they were agree to pay some money for f16 and then they stopped it for blackmailing .. now they relies with out Pakistan help they will have issues. i hope this cepc will bring more to pak

 

[Hyde]

Looks like the Americans really thought Pakistan would be brought to toes after cutting the financial aid but the policy of Pakistan shifted towards Russia... They thought lets ammend the relationship as opening another tension in the region in presence of greater threats of ISIS and militant groups is unwise

 

[Hell hound]

its time they realize that we are not in 90's anymore.its a two way street now you want something you give something back in return.

 

[Menace2Society]

Reject the money. Want trade not "assistance".

 

[Indus Pakistan]

not very fond of US aid in Pakistan

You may not but the fact is that Pak military is like a caterpillar - many of the legs it runs on are US provided and powered. Say if $450 million is kept back because of non certification which is almost certain, Pak military will still get $450 million.

I do not have the exact figure for Pak military budget but if it is say $4.5 billion then that is still 10% and no mean figure to be scoffed at. Inn the past it has been higher and in some years might have been 25% of the annual budget. That is lot of good money on top of the Pak defence allocation which goes on to add 'meat' to the army.

You also have many purchases like F-16s etc which again have been purchased by using defence aid. Bottom line it is easy dismissing it but when your dealing with hard facts - that every military runs on finances and Pakistan has a chronic culture of tax avoidance which means central budget is always not enough to run things let alone have enough to develop the country or even but capital equipment for the military.

In this scenario having or nursing pet hates is not a option. That is why every Pak leader including Gen. Raheel Sharif could simply have said no to the aid - it's not like that it is forced on them. But they had no option but to take it. For sake of argument say if US released the extra $450 million. What would it mean? Well for a starters the entire Frontier Corp could be improved with that money which would have significant positive effects.

Whether you like it or not but the sobering fact is most of what you see in Pakistan has been built up by US finances or is the legacy of British Raj. Precious little has been built up on local resources. We can blame the leadership or the local culture of not paying taxes but that is how it is.

And finally don't forget US is responsible to it's people and pursues it's own policy goals - nothing wrong with that. That is how it is. Pakistan has to look to making it's ruling elite including the military accountable for any failures. A prime and recent example is Musharaf. He was the creator of the Kargil debacle and then once in power on dubious grounds he gave away Afghanistan to the Northern Alliance the fruits of which Pakistan is still enjoying with daily anti-Pak rhetoric from that country. Not surprising since the very faction that hated Pakistan was installed in Kabul under his watch.

Yet today you have people still lauding his achievements including the economy - which only improved because of boost of extra American aid post 9/11.

Reject the money.

That is not a choice Pakistan has as long as nobody pays taxes.

Want trade not "assistance".

If wishes could be fishes. Trading preferances are mostly given to strategic partners not countries with limited shared values or interests. Pakistan has transient shared interests with US. Ayub Khan asked for this back in 1960s but failed to get it. He probablly came closer than any other leader in Pakistan's history in getting open trade agreement but even he failed.

His desperate appeal made in powerful language for a 'economic market' minus the politics failed to recieve support. The sad fact is economics and politics are linked. The West agreed to give Spain, Greece, even Japan the economic agrrements but that was because those countries also became political, social, civilizational juniors of the Western order.

 

[LeGenD]

I'm always wondering what economic and other assistance specifically means? Where does all this money get spent?

Other than that, I'm not very fond of US aid in Pakistan. The aid is often used as a tool of blackmail and extortion. We know the Americans use this as their dangling carrot. No country is immune to receiving aid and especially developing countries. However, we need to be careful with US aid because this money is coupled with conditions that are at times undeliverable. The preconditions are also toxic and harmful to Pakistan's interest. By receiving this aid we are essentially signing to a US contract. When we are unable to deliver we get accused of being insincere or incompetent. The aid which in reality amounts to not much should be ignored in my opinion. Pakistan can survive without this aid that inflicts more harm than good.

It is not wise to dismiss the importance of aid without being privy to how it is being invested.

Pakistan is a developing country and cannot sustain its economy on its own; therefore, aid is welcomed from any country. If Pakistan was economically self-sufficient, it could refuse any kind of aid from any country altogether.

Now, we should not restrict our perspective to what we think as right and ignore the perspective of others in the process. If US is giving us aid, it will come with some strings attached. US has some expectations from Pakistan just like any other country. Some may not like them but this is how things are in real-life. To explain my point further: since China is investing in CPEC, it has its own share of expectations. China will also gain significant leverage in Pakistani affairs due to investment of that magnitude. We are just looking at the rosy picture of it; butterflies and all.

Welcome to the real world.

 

[graphican]

Pakistan in in the position to put conditions upon USA, specially for its cooperation / mission in Afghanistan.

Gone are days when USA could arm twist Pakistan and get few favours just by threatening. now US aid is conditional, cooperation from Pakistan should also be conditional. Somebody got to restore National pride and teat USA on equal terms.

 

[LeGenD]

Pakistan in in the position to put conditions upon USA, specially for its cooperation for USA in Afghanistan. God somebody may stand up in Pakistan, for Pakistan only.

Gone are days when USA could arm twist Pakistan and get few favours just by threatening. now US aid is conditional, cooperation from Pakistan should also be conditional. Somebody got to restore National pride!

Actually no.

Pakistan cannot disregard American interests and investment in the region just like that. CPEC has its limits and Pakistan is far from being self-sufficient on the economic and technological front.

Yes, Pakistan can be bent, but to an extent.

@Kaptaan

Beautifully stated.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

The more I look at the history of the world post 1945 I am inclined to think of the movie 'Trading Places' with Eddie Murphy playing the down out black guy. The premise of the movie is the two Wall Street financiers bet that anybody given their blessing could get rich. So they give the black guy all the privilages and remove it from the white guy. Soon enough the black guy is a broken, homeless vagrant and the black guy is the respectable gentleman. Although that is a movie and of course in real life things are rather more nuanced but there is more then grain of thruth to the story.

If the Western world adopts or decides to give economic, trade preferance then that country will rise. How far it will rise depends on local conditions but it will rise to reasonable levels. Examples of this are Greece, Spain. Portugal, Cyprus, South Korea, Japan. In the western hemisphere Jamaica is beneficiary. However to get this preferance a country the politics, culture, civilization has to align with the Western order.

There is a flip side to this as well. Iran with it's vast oil, gas wealth and over 90% literacy including university graduation rates at par with Western Europe - indeed many of the social indicators in that country are better than Southern Europe and match Western Europe should have been the France or Norway of the east by now. Instead it is crippled and no where near where it's rnatural resources, human potential and 5,000 year history point to. That is because Iran has chosen a path against the West and has only survived because of the oil and a strong culture of 5,000 years as a nation.

Link > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_Places

 

[Hell hound]

Actually no.

Pakistan cannot disregard American interests and investment in the region just like that. CPEC has its limits and Pakistan is far from being self-sufficient on the economic and technological front.

Yes, Pakistan can be bent, but to an extent. Consistent negativity damages relations and leverage.

i partially agrees with you that we are not self sufficient yet and still need usa(heck even china and Russia needs USA to grow) and we will be needing them for foreseeable future.
but few thing have changed now usa can't get favors from us by just moving it's tongue. they need to give us something in return (no matter how small).