Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Interesting sign that Kerry's and Lugar's Pakistan aid bill really does have more oversight

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 08:27 AM
Original message
Interesting sign that Kerry's and Lugar's Pakistan aid bill really does have more oversight
Edited on Thu Oct-08-09 09:17 AM by karynnj
When the Kerry's landmark legislation was passed, many on GD-P linked to articles showing that past aid did not go where it was supposed to go. One interesting sign that the Pakistanis are convinced the oversight on this bill is more real are the debates in Pakistan over whether the bill causes Pakistan to lose some of its sovereignty. (though it is hard to say that we should have no say over how they use our money.)

Here is a Reuters Q & A on it that does a great job in listing the "controversial" conditions - http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSISL466759 (The conditions look reasonable to me.)

Here is an article on the debate. It is the military that is making these charges, which the Zardari government refutes.



Pakistan is seeking a national consensus on a U.S. aid bill after the powerful military voiced serious concern about conditions in the legislation that critics say amount to a humiliating violation of sovereignty.

The army's unusual public criticism of a diplomatic matter appears to have opened a rift with President Asif Ali Zardari's fragile government, which had earlier rejected opposition complaints that the U.S. bill undermined sovereignty.

Analysts are not predicting any immediate show-down between the military, which has vowed to stay out of politics, and the government but say the army's criticism could embolden the opposition which has whipped up criticism of Zardari.

<snip>
But in an effort to address U.S. concerns that Pakistan's military may support militant groups, the bill stipulates conditions for security aid, among them that Pakistan must show commitment in fighting terrorism.


http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSISL478759

It could be they are trying to get the conditions softened, as Obama has not signed it into law yet, but it is really unlikely to be that. It also looks unlikely that Pakistan will turn down the aid. Ultimately, it seems that this will potentially strengthen the government, while increasing their control of their own military.

I had been impressed by the humanitarian goals of the legislation, but this convinces me that there was very serious thought given to preventing as much as possible the diversion of the aid to things not intended and to stabilizing Pakistan.

Kerry's response:


US Senator John Kerry, the main sponsor of the controversial Kerry Lugar Bill, has said Washington has no intention to harm Pakistan’s sovereignty through the Bill.

Addressing a press conference after meeting Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi here, Kerry said the Obama Administration wants to work for the better of the Pakistanis and stressed that the aid Bill is a clear sign of US’ direct relations with the people of Pakistan.

“Pakistan will be given 7.5 billion dollar aid under Kerry Lugar Bill. We want good relationship with the government of Pakistan,” The News quoted Kerry, as saying.

Meanwhile, US Vice President Joe Biden has said that the Congress and House of Representatives have unanimously approved the Bill.

http://trak.in/news/kerry-lugar-bill-would-not-harm-paks-sovereignty-john-kerry/11288/

An alternative way of thinking of this bill is that it is a bill that is designed to help Pakistan improve its own stability and to improve conditions making joining terrorist groups less attractive - in addition to gaining more support by the Pakistanis in fighting terrorism - whether against India or Al Qaeda. It makes me wonder if a counter terrorism approach in Afghanistan coupled with a similar aid bill could be a possibility - if there were strict controls to quickly shut off money if it was being diverted by corrupt officials. (This would counter the likely charge that a counter terrorism approach would abandon the idea of rebuilding (or just building for the first time) Afghanistan's infrastructure. )

posted in GD-P - where it will sink fast - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8689714&mesg_id=8689714
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. This is really becoming interesting,
Edited on Fri Oct-09-09 12:28 PM by karynnj
Time magazine - gives a negative title, How a U.S. Aid Package to Pakistan Could Threaten Zardari, but it does go into the details of what the flack is. Short summary - it pushes Pakistan away from military control and condoning terrorist activities.

This is very heavy stuff. In my opinion, the Kerry/Lugar bill seems a way to actually use aid and diplomacy to help move Pakistan from being what, given their bomb we can't call it, a nation that really has supported terrorism. Historically they, after all, did have something to do with the Taliban, the A. Q. Khan network spread nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea, and they clearly have not really gone after terrorists that have attacked India. This is clearly high stakes and I would hope Obama realizes that Zadari will likely need support from us.

This is a nasty situation, where the path of least resistance taken by decades of American policy - of giving aid with no strings and ignoring oversight reports that can't see where much of the money went and seeing some was diverted has led to Pakistan being a source of instability - even though now the government seems to be moving in a better direction. For all the blame given Saddam's Iraq, Korea and Iran, it is Pakistan which was responsible for spreading nuclear technology to unstable countries


After decades of coddling military dictators in Pakistan, Washington wants a different relationship with its key partner in the war against al-Qaeda. The Kerry-Lugar Act which has passed the Senate, after a similar bill passed in the House last month, would provide $7.5 billion in nonmilitary aid over the next five years, in an ambitious plan to counter widespread anti-American sentiment there by helping Pakistan's civilian government deliver essential services to its population. Unlike previous no-strings aid packages, Kerry-Lugar makes support conditional on Pakistan's military being subordinated to its elected government, and taking action against militants sheltering on its soil. But by dangling the prospect of a desperately needed aid package on terms deemed intrusive by the military and opposition parties, the legislation may be weakening the very civilian government it hoped to bolster.

The furor over the aid package has left President Asif Ali Zardari increasingly isolated as normally fractious opposition parties unite against its "humiliating" conditions, with even the junior partners in Zardari's ruling coalition expressing misgivings. Public opinion ranges from suspicion to hostility, and the army high command broke with its recent habit of remaining quiet on political matters to issue an ominous statement. Following a meeting of its corps commanders, the army — the country's most powerful institution, long accustomed to keeping the political class in line — expressed "serious concern" over what it said were the "national security" implications of the aid package. The statement said that army chief General Ashfaq Kayani had also "reiterated that Pakistan is a sovereign state and has all the rights to analyze and respond to in accordance with her own national interests."

The generals' ire is focused on the bill's requirements that the U.S. Secretary of State certify, at six-month intervals, that the military remains under civilian oversight, even specifying such details as the need for the government to control senior command promotions. Kerry-Lugar also requires that the Pakistani military act against militant networks on its soil, specifying those based in Quetta and Muridke. U.S. officials believe that the leadership of the Afghan Taliban, including Mullah Omar, operates unmolested from the southwestern city of Quetta — a charge denied by Pakistan. Murdike, just outside Lahore, is the headquarters of Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), the militant group most recently responsible for last November's Mumbai massacre.

One of the Kerry-Lugar conditions most likely to trigger nationalist resistance is the requirement that Pakistan grant U.S. investigators "direct access to Pakistani nationals" associated with nuclear-proliferation networks. That's a reference to Dr. A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist who confessed to sharing nuclear-weapons secrets with Iran, North Korea and Libya. Although he was placed under house arrest in Pakistan, authorities there have consistently refused to allow him to be questioned by foreign investigators. "For all his sins, he's still considered a hero in Pakistan," says Tariq Azeem, an opposition senator who served in the government of former President Pervez Musharraf.




http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1929306,00.html


In Pakistan, the Pakistani Information officer, Kaira defends the bill:



slamabad, Oct. 6 (ANI): <snip>
The Daily Times quoted him, as saying that the checks on the assistance promised for the armed forces were in line with the government’s policies, as the government wanted a strong check on nuclear-proliferation and did not want Pakistani territory to be used to stage terrorist activities in foreign countries.

Kaira told the National Assembly that the legislation was framed after considering the aspirations and reservations of the American people.

“This is not binding on us. We have not made any agreement in this regard. The US can stop the security assistance if it is not satisfied with our performance,” he added.

He, however, said that no strings were attached to the 1.5 billion-dollar civilian economic aid meant for the social sector.

{/div]
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/south-asia/kaira-admits-that-strings-are-attached-with-the-kerry-lugar-bill_100256830.html


The strange thing is how all this is so under the radar. The first article I read yesterday was the first hint I saw of anything (and googling Kerry's name should have found things). In fact, my interest was because of the DU view that the bill was like previous bills. Kerry's trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan should be very very intense. It will be nice when it is over and he's arguing with the moderate Democrats on the Finance Committee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Kerry's response in a Pakistani news source

Here is an article where Kerry in a Pakistani news source answers some of this:


WASHINGTON, Oct 9 (APP): Senator John Kerry, co-sponsor of $ 7.5 billion Kerry-Lugar bill, has called the legislation a “true sign of U.S. friendship” to the people of Pakistan with no conditions attached to the non-military assistance as his office explained the intent behind the measure amidst parliamentary debate on the subject in Islamabad.“The United States wants to transform its relationship with Pakistan into a deeper, broader, long-term strategic engagement with the people of Pakistan,” his office said in a release to the media.

“The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act, also known as the Kerry-Lugar bill, was designed to help turn the page in our bilateral relationship by moving beyond a military relationship to one where the United States engages directly with the people of Pakistan as a true ally and friend.”
<snip>
According to Kerry’s office “the conditions on military aid reinforce the stated policy of the Government of Pakistan, major Pakistani opposition parties, and the Pakistani military and are the basis of bilateral cooperation between the United States and Pakistan.”

“Pakistan and the United States share common goals to bolster security and democracy in the region and have been working together as allies towards these goals. The language in the bill reflects this understanding and commitment by the people of Pakistan in furthering regional stability and democracy.”

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87474&Itemid=1
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Strong defense from Zardari
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 22nd 2024, 03:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC