<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" version="2.0"><channel>
                        <title>The Express Tribune</title>
                        <atom:link href="https://tribune.com.pk/feed/foreignaid" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
                        <link>https://tribune.com.pk/feed/foreignaid</link>
                        <description>The Express Tribune keeps you up to date with all the latest happenings from Pakistan and across the world!</description>
                        <lastBuildDate>Sun, 31 May 26 20:46:08 +0500</lastBuildDate>
                        <language>en-US</language>
                        <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
                        <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
                        <generator>https://laravel.com/</generator><item>
			<title>Aid addiction</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/549776/aid-addiction</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/549776/aid-addiction#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 13 18:18:35 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[naseer.memon]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=549776</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan has been receiving a generous dole-out for decades, though at an exorbitant price of self-esteem and pride.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan is poised to be the largest recipient of UK aid with an expected 67 per cent increase, which will jack up the amount of aid to 446 million pounds next year. In a country blighted by a faltering economy and tumbling social care support, this magnanimity sparked a new debate. A disgruntled British parliamentary committee lamented that the increase in aid should be made contingent upon greater tax collection from the rich and clamping down on corruption in Pakistan. The chairman of the Committee, Malcolm Bruce, said that “we cannot expect people in the UK to pay taxes to improve education and health in Pakistan if the Pakistani elite do not pay meaningful amounts of income tax”.

Considering Europe’s economic recession, such vexation is likely to spiral in the coming years. Pakistan’s tax administration is debilitated by inefficiency, corruption and apathy by the elite. Except the salaried middle class who has no option, everyone else can easily escape the porous tax net. Pakistan has one of the lowest tax-to-GDP ratios, with only nine per cent of GDP contributed by taxes, and trails behind other Asian countries, e.g., Afghanistan (11 per cent), Sri Lanka (13 per cent), India (16 per cent) and Thailand (17 per cent). The chairman of the FBR made a startling revelation at a meeting of the Senate’s Standing Committee on Finance, last year, by sharing that 84 per cent of tariff and duty rates have either been exempted or reduced to benefit certain influential lobbies. He aptly termed it a “Financial NRO”. This explains another flabbergasting fact that during the past five years, the government took loans of Rs604 billionfrom the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and vitiated the benefit by issuing tax exemptions of Rs719 billion during the same years. In a country of 180 million, only 3.5 million persons are registered taxpayers, 1.5 million of whom are dormant and one million are salaried employees. It is hard for anyone on earth to countenance this obnoxious perpetuation.

The UK — one of the largest social sector financer of Pakistan — is at the cusp of stagflation and soaring youth unemployment. Concomitant yawning economic disparities and suicides have dwarfed all past records in Europe. According to a research conducted in the UK, 30 per cent of income in 2005 remained with the top five per cent of earners. The Topical youth NEET (not in employment, education and training) has crossed 1.2 million in Britain, whereas, Greece, Spain and Italy are enduring a tailspin. May Day witnessed highly charged protest rallies in major cities of Europe. In this backdrop, a teeth-baring reaction to aid is plausible. Although geopolitical interests of the US and the UK have a perforce to ensure sustained flow of aid to Pakistan, this may, however, entail stringent conditions in future years.

Pakistan, as a surrogate battlefield for the US and its allies, had been receiving a generous dole-out for decades, though, at an exorbitant price of self-esteem and pride. Aid effectiveness is yet another conundrum. While billions of dollars are funnelled, citizens are still entangled in perpetuating poverty, terrorism continues to torments lives and the country endures perennial political instability. Demand for drastic measures to reform a dishevelled polity and economy cannot be parried any longer. In a rapidly changing economic vista, in the so-called developed world, Pakistan needs to device strategies to wean away from foreign aid and plug breaches in the national exchequer. Prosperity and dignity can never be achieved through begging bowls.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 16th, 2013.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Credibility crisis?: PPP govt fails miserably in securing enough foreign funding</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/547080/credibility-crisis-ppp-govt-fails-miserably-in-securing-enough-foreign-funding</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/547080/credibility-crisis-ppp-govt-fails-miserably-in-securing-enough-foreign-funding#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 13 19:04:48 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Shahbaz Rana]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=547080</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Less than half of budgeted estimates of foreign loans and assistance actually realised.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan could obtain only $1.8 billion in foreign funding during the first nine months of the ongoing fiscal year, owing to the last government’s failure in floating a $500 million Euro bond and less-than-anticipated funding from all major international lenders. Foreign loans are budgeted as a part of the government’s overall projections for the balance of payments for the year.


Receipts for the July to March period totalled just 47.6% of the annual budgeted estimate of $3.8 billion, according to documents released by the Economic Affairs Division. Out of the $1.8 billion, a sum of $228 million was received in grants, while the remaining was accounted for by different loans.

The United Kingdom provided the largest component of aid, as it gave $100.8 million in grants. The UK had promised to give $97.1 million for the full year. That sum was higher than even the US, the country’s coalition partner in the war against terror, as the Obama administration disbursed only $70.4 million under the Kerry-Luger package according to official documents. The disbursements from the US came to less than 40% of the annual budgeted amount of $179.7 million.

The US had committed $7.5 billion over five years under the Kerry-Luger package, but the documents show a wide gap between commitments and actual disbursements.

Analysts have revised their estimates after the fresh data was released: they are now anticipating an external financing gap to the tune of $1.5 billion – $500 million higher than initial estimates. That shortfall is likely to bring the rupee under further pressure due to the rapid depletion of foreign currency reserves, they added. Pakistan has already begun negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a second bailout programme in less than five years.

According to the documents released, the PPP government failed to float a $500 million exchangeable bond, which was to be backed by shares of the Oil and Gas Development Company. The debt crisis in the euro zone and deteriorating domestic economic conditions restrained the last regime from going to international debt markets, officials said.

Similarly, the flows of funds from Japan, the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, the Islamic Development Bank and other bilateral lenders trickled in far below estimates.

Japan had promised $444.4 million in loans and grants, but instead gave $114.7 million or 25.8% of the annual assistance promised. The World Bank, on the other hand, gave only $326 million as against annual commitments of $762 million. The disbursements came to only 42.5% of annual commitments, according to the Economic Affairs Division.

The Islamic Development Bank gave only $315.3 million or 53% of the annual assistance promised, including an expensive loan worth $256 million. The ADB disbursed $277 million or 61.3% of annual budget estimates.

International lending agencies had suspended additional budgetary support to Pakistan besides slowing releases of funds in the pipeline due to the last government’s inability to implement taxation and energy reforms. During the ongoing dialogue, the IMF told Pakistan that it will provide fresh loans only to the extent of what Islamabad already owes to the Fund. For additional funding requirements, the Fund asked negotiators to separately talk with the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.

Authorities estimate a financing gap of $6.5 billion for fiscal 2013-14. If the IMF and Pakistan agree on the terms for a new programme, the Fund will give Islamabad $3.6 billion for the first year. Pakistan will separately negotiate with other lending agencies in order to bridge the $3 billion gap.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 11th, 2013.

Like Business on Facebook to stay informed and join in the conversation.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Can aid salvage US-Pak relations?</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/325107/can-aid-salvage-us-pak-relations</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/325107/can-aid-salvage-us-pak-relations#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 12 18:39:24 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Syed Mohammad Ali .]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=325107</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Both, Pakistan and the US, must work harder to ensure that civilian aid actually reaches those it is intended for.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Its internal implications, apart from the memogate scandal has led to the appointment of a new Pakistani ambassador to the US, who has just taken charge of her responsibilities in Washington, at a time when relations between the two countries are severely strained. Last year was a particularly difficult one for Pakistan-US relations. There was continuing US pressure on Pakistan to do more to prevent cross-border terrorism, alongside a growing suspicion of alleged Pakistani complicity with militant groups to maintain strategic leverage vis-a-vis Afghanistan. Collateral damage caused by US drone strikes has not done much to lessen US resentment within a country whose citizens feel that they have had to face the brunt of violence and economic uncertainty in the ‘war against terror’.

In view of worsening bilateral relations, US aid flows to the military remain suspended, including $2 billion in payments under the Coalition Support Fund. The disbursement of non-military aid, including the $7.5 billion pledged under the Kerry-Lugar Bill (KLB) has also been very slow. A US Congressional panel had reported reaching an agreement in December on freezing $700 million in aid to Islamabad, unless Pakistan stops the movement of fertilisers that militants in Afghanistan use in Improvised Explosive Devices to target American troops.

Appointment of our new ambassador to the US will provide impetus to bringing US-Pakistan relations back on track. In this regard, it would be vital to focus on not only resumption but also increased effectiveness of the US civilian assistance programme for Pakistan.

Recognising that the KLB is in grave danger, the Woodrow Wilson Centre in Washington DC has released a report this past month titled, “Aiding without abetting: Making US civilian assistance to Pakistan work for both sides”. This report warns that substantial midcourse changes are needed if the KLB is to fulfil the hopes associated with it.

Besides identifying strategic areas for aid investment, the report calls for policymakers on both sides to establish more realistic timelines for stepping up the percentages of US aid to be dispensed through the Pakistani government structures to prevent underutilisation or unavailability of committed funds. While proposing continued budgetary support for the Benazir Income Support Programme, it is suggested that the initiative be tightened to exclude political manipulation and also aim to move beneficiaries toward eventual independence, which is also a sensible suggestion.

However, insufficient attention is drawn to the underlying causes of poverty in the country, such as unequal land access in rural areas which remains a major reason for not only poverty but also social unrest. Although aiming to address such structural causes of deprivation may lead to resistance by vested interest groups, continuing to ignore such ground realities risks continued elite capture of incoming aid and its resulting impotency to make Pakistan a more equitable country.

Both, Pakistan and the US, must work harder to ensure that civilian aid actually reaches those it is intended for, instead of it being held captive to political agendas, or else being misappropriated. In this regard, formulation of more bottom-up instead of top-down aid policies and their genuine implementation would go a long way in allaying US concerns regarding its increasing unpopularity, while helping the Pakistani government curb the scrounge of militancy and deprivation, which has been growing domestically over this past decade as an inevitable outfall of the ‘war against terror’.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 22nd, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>US announces $10 million development fund for Balochistan</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/319918/us-announces-10-million-development-fund-for-balochistan</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/319918/us-announces-10-million-development-fund-for-balochistan#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 12 17:11:38 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Balochistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=319918</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[US Consul General William Martin said funds for rehabilitation in the education and water sector.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[United States Consul General William Martin announced $10 million in aid on Wednesday for rehabilitation and provision of educational and health facilities in the Duregi area of Lasbela district in Balochistan.

Martin announced the multi-million dollar aid package on behalf of the US government, while visiting a girl’s primary school in Duregi.

“I am pleased to announce $10 million aid on the behalf of United States for the rehabilitation and provision of providing facilities to schools. I will also propose development projects for the area, specifically in the water sector.”

The US Consul General also visited the newly constructed dams for irrigation and was briefed by irrigation officials about how they were benefiting the people. Martin appreciated the initiatives taken to improve the education sector in Duregi, particularly for girls, as well as steps taken to overcome the problems pertaining to drinking water.

US officials were visiting the area on an invitation from Speaker Balochistan Assembly, Aslam Bhootani. Officials comprised of political officers and US aid representatives.

Bhootani lauded the keen interest shown by the US Consul General and appreciated his announcement.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Civilian aid dries up: US refuses to fund  Pakistan-American Enterprise Fund</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/316643/civilian-aid-dries-up-us-refuses-to-fund-pakistan-american-enterprise-fund</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/316643/civilian-aid-dries-up-us-refuses-to-fund-pakistan-american-enterprise-fund#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 12 21:52:52 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Shahbaz Rana]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=316643</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The $300 million was intended to finance small and medium enterprises in the private sector.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[After suspending military assistance, the United States has now refused to finance the $300 million Pakistan-American Enterprise Fund as tensions between Islamabad and Washington start taking their toll on civilian aid.


The revelation comes after President Obama signed an omnibus spending bill which linked disbursements of the $850 million Country Insurgency Fund with the requirement that any assistance to Pakistan be made conditional to the US Secretary of State and Secretary of Defence certifying that Islamabad is cooperating in the war on terror.

The approval of the Pakistan-American Enterprise Fund has been dropped despite the fact Pakistan had been assured by the US Deputy Secretary of State that the fund would be approved. The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee had earlier cleared the draft legislation and sent it to a conference committee of the United States Congress – a joint body comprising representatives from both houses of the US legislature – for final approval.

Sources in the finance ministry told The Express Tribune that the Obama administration did not put the fund up for a vote and took it out from the draft legislation at conference committee stage. The Pak-American Fund approval had earlier been clubbed with similar funds for three other countries. The US legislature approved such funds for other countries but left out the fund for Pakistan, they added.

The fund was to be financed under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act – enshrined into US law to give $7.5 billion over five years in civilian assistance to Pakistan. The implementation period of $300 million fund was five years, with a $60 million annual American investment in small and medium enterprises in Pakistan.

The fund was aimed at empowering Pakistan’s private sector by creating jobs and opportunities for increasing economic growth and stability in the country. The US had modelled the fund over its earlier successful post-Cold War funds established for the development of Eastern Europe.

Mark Stroh, the spokesman for the US Embassy in Islamabad, confirmed that “Congress did not legislate the Pakistan-American Enterprise Fund in the 2012 budget”. In fact the fund was not even tabled for the approval by Congress, he added.

Stroh said: “however, the [Obama] administration continues to pursue access to finance for small and medium businesses in Pakistan through its equity fund.” He said the US government was still looking for ways to give access to capital to small businesses in 2012 but nothing can be said with certainty at this stage.

Sources said that as Congress is currently in a deeply anti-Pakistan mood, the Obama administration was looking for alternative programmes and the Pakistan Equity Fund was one of the possibilities. They added establishing the equity fund would not require Congressional approval.

The denial of the enterprise fund comes as a blow to Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh, who had been assured by the US Deputy Secretary of State in September 2011 that the US government would not suspend civilian assistance, despite the strains in the military ties between the two countries.

The Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act was approved by Congress in 2010 and was meant to provide $1.5 billion in assistance to Pakistan every year. Yet so far only the money for 2010 has been authorised, of which only $600 million has actually been disbursed. The US media, however, has a tendency to count announced aid, rather than disbursed aid.

In addition, the US has not paid Pakistan for any services it has rendered in the war on terror since January 2011. The outstanding payments, due to come out of the Coalition Support Fund, now range between $2.5 billion to $3.4 billion, depending whether Islamabad still counts the rejected bills in the outstanding amount.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 5th, 2012.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>US Congress moves to limit foreign assistance to Pakistan</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/308000/us-congress-moves-to-limit-foreign-assistance-to-pakistan</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/308000/us-congress-moves-to-limit-foreign-assistance-to-pakistan#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 17 Dec 11 09:51:01 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[reuters]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=308000</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[No number included for economic aid to Pakistan, Obama administration to specify it in consultation with Congress.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The US House of Representatives approved a bill on Friday outlining the foreign aid section of the new US spending plan for fiscal year 2012, which began on October 1 and the Democratic-run Senate was expected to pass it by this week's end.

Aid in war zones helped boost the overall amount the United States was willing to commit to foreign assistance in a time of budget scarcity, despite deep cuts advocated by budget hawks in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

But numerous countries, including Pakistan and Egypt, still could see a decline or even a halt to US foreign assistance if they do not meet conditions attached to the legislation.

The legislation provides $42.1 billion in regular funding for the State Department and foreign aid in 2012, which is a cut of more than $6 billion from the 2011 level.

The legislation allocates $850 million for a fund to help Pakistan's military develop counter-insurgency capabilities to fight militants within its borders. This is a slight increase from last year's $800 million but less than the $1.1 billion President Obama requested for the fund in 2012.

However, a massive defense bill Congress passed on Thursday freezes 60 percent of this amount, or $510 billion, until the US defense secretary provides lawmakers with assurances that Pakistan is working to counter improvised explosive devices (IEDs). US lawmakers say that many Afghan bombs that kill US troops are made with fertilizer smuggled by militants across the border from Pakistan into Afghanistan.

No number was included for economic aid to Pakistan, leaving the Obama administration to specify the amount in consultation with Congress. This is a comedown for Pakistan; in each of the past three years, about $1 billion or more in economic aid for Pakistan was written into spending bills, in part to meet pledges made under 2009 legislation sponsored by Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar.

Economic as well as security aid was made conditional on Pakistan's cooperation in fighting militants such as the Haqqani network. Many lawmakers have been calling for aid to Pakistan to be reduced since US special forces found and killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad on May 2.

The 2012 spending plan is a mixed bag, said Liz Schrayer, the executive director of the US Global Leadership Coalition, which advocates for diplomacy and development aid.

"In the short term, we are pleased the agreement avoids the deep and disproportionate cuts to these programs from earlier versions of the bill ... However, in the long-run, the cuts to funding for non-war related program is of grave concern given the challenges and turbulence in the world today."

John Norris of the Center for American Progress think-tank said the cut to USAID operations was significant, "but it doesn't look like a cut that would grind operations to a halt, bringing messy contingency planning and staff reductions."

Still, he said "there is a great deal of uncertainty hanging over" US foreign aid.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Defence budget: US Congress clears Pakistan aid freeze bill</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/307487/us-senate-clears-bill-to-block-aid-to-pakistan</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/307487/us-senate-clears-bill-to-block-aid-to-pakistan#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 11 22:31:57 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[huma.imtiaz]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=307487</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Islamabad condemns move; US embassy insists requirements are standard practice.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The US Senate on Thursday passed the National Defense Authorisation Act for the fiscal year 2012 with 86 senators voting for, and 13 against the bill, agreeing to freeze close to $700 million in aid to Pakistan.

Prior to the passage of the bill, the Senators debated the language and clauses pertaining to military detention of individuals in terrorism-related charges. The bill will now be sent to the White House for President Obama's signature before it becomes law.

The bill, which also places sanctions on Iran, calls for a hold on 60 per cent of Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund over the issue of Pakistan failing to act against the flow of IEDs, and raw materials for bombs.

The bill requires that the Secretary of Defense submit a report "that would" include a strategy for enhancing Pakistan‘s efforts to counter improvised explosive devices (IED) and information on whether Pakistan is making significant efforts to implement a strategy to counter IEDs."

Earlier, the White House had announced it would veto the NDAA due to clauses pertaining to the detention of US citizens in terror-related charges. On Wednesday, after the House and Senate representatives changed the language of the bill in conference meetings, the White House announced it would not veto the bill after it was passed by Senate.

Addressing the State Department press briefing on Thursday, spokesperson Victoria Nuland said, "What this piece of legislation requires is that the Administration make certain certifications as to how our general relationship with Pakistan is going in certain categories in order to release the money, but this is not about cutting funding or freezing funding."

She explained that the bill would not whole sole end aid to Pakistan, that it only added a certification requirement to release aid. "We’re working on setting the funding levels with the Congress. It is about imposing on the Administration certain certification requirements before we would release the money that the Congress would give. This is very similar to procedures that we have on other kinds of money for countries around the world,"Nuland said, adding "In addition, I would say that they usually include some kind of waiver authorities for the Secretary."

Addressing some suggestions in part of the Pakistani press that the certifications may be yet another form of impingement of Pakistan's sovereignty, she said "And I’d also like to say that this in no way impinges on Pakistani sovereignty. We’ve seen some strange assertions in the Pakistani press, which are inaccurate."

The US Embassy in Islamabad has also issued a press release to "clarify" the contents of the bill. According to the press release, the bill does not cut assistance, but includes a reporting requirement. "Once the Secretary of Defense certifies that Pakistan is cooperating in our joint efforts to combat improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the funds will be released. Assistance conditioned to reporting requirements is not new, nor are such reporting requirements specific to Pakistan. This is standard practice in nearly every country that receives US military assistance."

Updated from Print Edition (below):

After days of hammering out the details of the National Defence Authorisation Act 2011, the US House of Representatives voted 283-136 to pass the bill that calls for a major chunk of military assistance to Pakistan to be frozen.

The Senate also voted on Thurs­day 86-13 to pass the bill. It now only awaits the US president’s signature for authorisation. The bill would freeze roughly $700 million in aid to Pakistan pending assurances that Islamabad has taken steps to thwart militants who use improvised explosive devices (IEDs) against US-led forces in Afghanistan.

The bill calls for only 40% of Pakistan Counterinsurgency Funds to be released – the rest of the amount can only be released after the Department of Defence issues a report stating that Pakistan has made progress in stemming the flow of ammonium nitrate and IEDs.

Govt criticises US move

Pakistan strongly criticised on Thursday the Congress legislation to block aid in a latest sign of simmering tensions between the two uneasy allies.

“We believe that the move in the US Congress is not based on facts and takes narrow vision of the overall situation hence wrong conclusions are unavoidable,” foreign ministry spokesman Abdul Basit told reporters on Thursday during the weekly FO briefing.

However, the US embassy in Islamabad was quick to downplay the Congress move. A statement pointed out that the current draft of the Act does not cut $700 million in military aid to Pakistan. Rather, it includes a reporting requirement, it added.

“In this instance, once the defence secretary certifies that Pakistan is cooperating in our joint efforts to combat improvised explosive devices, the funds will be released,” the statement said.

It went on to say that assistance conditioned to reporting requirements is not new, nor are such reporting requirements specific to Pakistan.

“This is standard practice in nearly every country that receives US military assistance.”

Aid cut linked to Pakistan’s reaction to Nato attack?

However, the development is seen as being linked with Pakistan’s sharp reaction to last month’s Nato attacks that killed 24 soldiers.

The November 26 incident prompted Islamabad to shut down Nato supplies and review the decade-old cooperation with the US.

Basit said Pakistan is in process of “reviewing our terms of engagement with US, Nato and Isaf in their entirety.” “Let me emphasise the issue of Pakistan’s sovereignty, is non-negotiable,” he added.

“I think the real question has to be what has been done on the Afghan side of the border,” he said. “Pakistan cannot be held responsible for weaknesses and loopholes on the other side of the border,” he added.

Bill calls for indefinite detention of US citizens

The bill also contains clauses pertaining to the military detention of civilians in terror-related charges.

Earlier, human rights organisations and several members of Congress had expressed reservations that the bill would allow the indefinite detention of US citizens.

The House and Senate committee worked to change the language of the bill, after which the White House announced on Wednesday that it would not be vetoing the bill.

(Read: Four myths about Kerry-Lugar-Berman)

Published in The Express Tribune, December 16th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Pakistan to fight war on terror on its own terms: Khar</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/307060/pakistan-to-fight-war-on-terror-on-its-own-terms-khar</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/307060/pakistan-to-fight-war-on-terror-on-its-own-terms-khar#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 11 10:22:25 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=307060</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Foreign minister says relationship between Pakistan and US will be restored after a mandate from the parliament.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan will fight the war on terrorism according to its own terms and conditions and not that of the US Congress, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar said on Thursday.

Speaking to the media outside the Parliament House after the National Security Committee meeting, Khar said that she was confident because Pakistan did the internal re-evaluation that was needed. “[It] will not only strengthen the space within the country or give us ownership of our foreign policy… but it will also strengthen the partnership that we pursue with any other country.”

The foreign minister added that the relationship between Pakistan and the US is on hold and it will be restored on a ‘clearly defined mandate’ from the parliament. “It will be a partnership which has less gray areas, which has a clear mandate of the public and parliament of Pakistan; and therefore, we will be able to pursue this partnership much more vigorously,” she added.

An envoys conference was recently held in Islamabad to review the foreign policy of the country, where the foreign minister said that Pakistan does not wish to ruin its relationship with the US or engage in any war. The recommendations formulated during the conference were put forward before the National Security Committee today.

The foreign minister also said that Pakistan should not be bothered by the cut in the US aid.

A legislation, recently passed by the US House of Representatives, froze roughly $700 million in aid to Pakistan pending assurances that Islamabad has taken steps to thwart militants who use improvised explosive devices (IEDs) against US-led forces in Afghanistan.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Obama to sign bill freezing aid to Pakistan: White House</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/306988/obama-to-sign-bill-freezing-aid-to-pakistan-white-house</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/306988/obama-to-sign-bill-freezing-aid-to-pakistan-white-house#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 11 04:22:20 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=306988</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[White House spokesman says President Obama will sign the bill despite lingering misgivings.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The US House of Representatives on Wednesday passed legislation to freeze some Pakistan aid, slap harsh new sanctions on Iran, and endorse indefinite imprisonment of suspected terrorists.

Acting shortly after the White House dropped a threat to veto the bill, the Republican-led chamber voted 283-136 to approve the $662 billion Defense Authorization bill, which also sets high hurdles for closing Guantanamo Bay.

The Democratic-held Senate was expected to vote on the same bill as early as Thursday.

The measure had drawn fire from civil liberties groups that denounced its de facto embrace of holding alleged extremists without charge until the end of the "war on terrorism" declared after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

US President Barack Obama, who had threatened to veto earlier versions of the yearly measure, will sign it when it reaches his desk despite lingering misgivings, spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement before the vote.

"However, if in the process of implementing this law we determine that it will negatively impact our counterterrorism professionals and undercut our commitment to the rule of law, we expect that the authors of these provisions will work quickly and tirelessly to correct these problems," said Carney.

The legislation, a compromise blend of rival House and Senate versions, requires that al Qaeda fighters who plot or carry out attacks on US targets be held in military, not civilian, custody, subject to a presidential waiver.

The bill exempts US citizens from that fate, but leaves it to the US Supreme Court or future presidents to decide whether US nationals who sign on with al Qaeda or affiliated groups may be held indefinitely without trial.

"In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.

Obama had warned he could reject the original proposal over the military custody issue, as well as provisions he charged would short-circuit civilian trials for alleged terrorists.

FBI Director Robert Mueller warned lawmakers Wednesday that he still had "concerns" that the legislation left unclear "what happens at the time of arrest" in terms of detaining or questioning a suspect in a terrorism case.

There is a risk that "we will lose opportunities to obtain cooperation from the persons that, in the past, we've been fairly successful in gaining," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And "this statute that gives the military an inroad to making detentions in the United States may be applicable and work well with the persons you have now -- but five years, 10 years down the road, what could this mean?" he said.

The lawmakers crafting the compromise measure strengthened Obama's ability to waive parts of the detainee provisions, and reaffirmed that the custody rules would not hamper ongoing criminal investigations by the FBI or other agencies.

And they slightly diluted the legislation's tough new sanctions on Iran, which aim to cut off Tehran's central bank from the global financial system in a bid to force the Islamic republic to freeze its suspect nuclear program.

The goal of the legislation is to force financial institutions to choose between doing business with the central bank -- Iran's conduit for selling its oil to earn much-needed foreign cash -- or doing business with US banks.

The bill would also freeze roughly $700 million in aid to Pakistan pending assurances that Islamabad has taken steps to thwart militants who use improvised explosive devices (IEDs) against US-led forces in Afghanistan.

"If this legislation becomes law, we'll work with the government of Pakistan on how we can fulfill the requirements. But, this requires us to maintain a strategic perspective," US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.

The measure forbids the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to US soil and sharply restricts moving such prisoners to third countries -- steps that critics of the facility say will make it much harder to close down.

The legislation also calls for closer military ties with Georgia, including the sale of weapons that supporters say would help the country, which fought a brief war with Russia in 2008, defend itself.

It also included a measure to crack down on counterfeit electronics making their way from China into the Pentagon's supply chain, hurting the reliability of high-priced US weapons programs.

Among Republicans, 190 voted yes and 43 voted no, while Democrats were evenly split with 93 votes each way.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>US Congress paves way to Pakistan aid freeze</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/306896/us-congress-moves-closer-to-freezing-pakistan-aid</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/306896/us-congress-moves-closer-to-freezing-pakistan-aid#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 11 20:29:30 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=306896</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Bill still needs to pass a Senate vote to implem­ent the freeze.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[After days of hammering out the details of the National Defense Authorisation Act 2011, the US House of Representatives voted 283-136 to pass the bill, that calls for a major chunk of military assistance to Pakistan to be frozen until Pakistan showed progress in acting to stem the flow of IEDs and ammonium nitrate into Afghanistan.

The bill, now pending a Senate vote, calls for only 40% of Pakistan Counterinsurgency Funds to be released - the rest of the amount can only be released after the Department of Defense issues a report stating that Pakistan has made progress in stemming the flow of ammonium nitrate and IEDs into Afghanistan.

The bill also slaps harsh new sanctions on Iran, and embraces indefinite detention of suspected terrorists.

The House and Senate committee worked to change the language of the bill, after which the White House announced on Wednesday that it would not be vetoing the bill, as it has previously said it would.

The measure would freeze roughly $700 million in aid to Pakistan pending assurances that Islamabad has taken steps to thwart militants who use improvised explosive devices (IEDs) against US-led forces in Afghanistan.

"We've had some shaky relations lately with Pakistan. We need them, they need us," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, a Republican.

"But one of the things that has bothered me the most in this war in Afghanistan is the loss of life and limb to IEDs."

Bill to keep al Qaeda linked militants in military custody

The legislation notably requires that al Qaeda fighters who plot or carry out attacks on US targets be held in military, not civilian, custody, subject to a presidential waiver.

The measure exempts US citizens from that fate, but leaves it to the US Supreme Court or future presidents to decide whether US nationals who sign on with al Qaeda or affiliated groups may be held indefinitely without trial.

Obama had warned he could reject the original proposal over the required military custody of some suspected extremists, as well as provisions he charged would short-circuit civilian trials for alleged terrorists.

"I just can't imagine that the president would veto this bill" given the changes made in the House-Senate compromise, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Democrat, said Monday.

Veteran Senator John McCain, the top Republican on Levin's panel, said the negotiators had met with key aides to Obama, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and top US Treasury Department officials.

"We feel that we were able to satisfy, we hope, most of their concerns," he said.

The lawmakers strengthened Obama's ability to waive parts of the detainee provisions and reaffirmed that the custody rules would not hamper ongoing criminal investigations by the FBI or other law enforcement organisations.

The measure forbids the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to US soil and sharply restricts moving such prisoners to third countries - steps that critics of the facility say will make it much harder to close down.

More sanctions on Iran

The legislation adopts a tough new stance towards sanctions on Iran, which aim to cut off Tehran's central bank from the global financial system in a bid to force the Islamic republic to freeze its suspect nuclear program.

"It does curtail Iran's ability to buy and sell petroleum through its central bank and prevents foreign financial institutions that deal with the central bank of Iran from continuing their access to the US financial system," said McCain.

"They are going to pay a bigger and bigger price should they continue to move towards nuclear weapons," said Levin.

Arms for Georgia against Russia

The legislation also calls for closer military ties with Georgia, including the sale of weapons that McCain said would help the country, which fought a brief war with Russia in 2008, defend itself.

And it included a measure, authored by McCain and Levin, to crack down on counterfeit electronics making their way from China into the Pentagon's supply chain, hurting the reliability of high-priced US weapons programs.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Tribune Take: Fertilizers don't kill people, people kill people</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/306642/tribune-take-fertilizers-dont-kill-people-people-kill-people</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/306642/tribune-take-fertilizers-dont-kill-people-people-kill-people#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 11 16:12:58 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[mahawish.rezvi]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category><category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=306642</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Khurram Baig discusses conditions laid out by US lawmakers to curtail the flow of ammonium nitrate into Afghanistan.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[In today’s episode of the Tribune Take, we take a look at the US Congressional panel's decision to freeze $700 million in aid to Pakistan in a measure that aims to stop the spread of IEDs in Afghanistan, raw material for which, US lawmakers say, is smuggled from Pakistan.

Khurram Baig, Business Editor The Express Tribune, says a potential cut of $700 million in military aid to Pakistan from the United States amounts to nearly 30% of military assistance given to Pakistan. He says this cut will impact Pakistani military budgets and a growing perception of worsening ties between the two nations could further hurt the country in terms of investment as well.

Baig discusses the conditions laid out by US lawmakers to curtail the flow of ammonium nitrate, a common fertilizer produced in Pakistan. He says that this issue is about strengthening border security to control the flow of this fertilizer to Afghanistan and not about stopping the production of the product.

He says the fertilizer is essential to the country because Pakistan's economy is largely dependant on its agricultural sector.

Read Khurram Baig's articles here.

The Tribune Take daily news web show will appear on the tribune.com.pk home page.

The Take will feature in-depth interviews and analysis with editors and reporters who are covering the major stories, exploring front page events and major ledes. The news analysis covers the way The Express Tribune examines a story, how we cover it and why.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Reconciliatory overtures: US insists civilian aid to Pakistan not being cut</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/306450/no-cut-in-civilian-aid-to-pakistan-us</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/306450/no-cut-in-civilian-aid-to-pakistan-us#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 11 05:15:41 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=306450</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Military says Kayani did not discuss Nato supply routes with Isaf commander.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[In an attempt to play down the aid freeze proposals, the Obama administration clarified that civilian aid to Pakistan is not being cut and the matter of freezing defense aid to Pakistan is still in the Congress.

US State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland, during a press briefing in Washington said: “We have not cut $700 million in aid to Pakistan.” She added that the defense authorisation bill is currently moving in the Congress “which would require the Department of Defense to continue providing a strategy on how we will use certain military assistance and measure its progress, in particular on progress that we are making with Pakistan on the IED issue.”

US lawmakers agreed to freeze $700 million in aid to Pakistan in a punitive measure that aims to stop the spread of improvised-explosive devices (IEDs) in Afghanistan, raw material for which, US lawmakers say, is smuggled from Pakistan.

“So if – obviously, if this legislation becomes law, we’ll work with the government of Pakistan on how we can fulfill the requirements,” added Nuland.

She refused to comment on the envoys conference held in Pakistan to redraw key pacts with the US, but said: “It’s very important for the United States and Pakistan to continue to work together.”

Meanwhile, the military’s spokesperson issued a clarification on Wednesday, saying that the Pakistani army chief did not discuss resumption of Nato supply routes with his Isaf counterpart.

A statement by the Inter-Services Public Relations, military’s media wing, said that “during a telephonic conversation between General John Allen and General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani on 12 December 2011, the issue of reopening up of NATO supply route never came under discussion, as has been highlighted in the statements of Commander Isaf.”

Published in The Express Tribune, December 15th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>US drone strikes ‘on hold’ in tribal areas</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/305964/us-official-claims-pakistan-drone-strikes-on-hold-report</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/305964/us-official-claims-pakistan-drone-strikes-on-hold-report#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 11 05:15:22 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=305964</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[US officials fear that an attack at this point in time would further damage the already brittle US-Pak relationship.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[As the US-Pakistan relationship continues to plummet, the US has placed its covert air campaign against al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan’s tribal agencies “on hold” The Long War Journal reported.

According to the report, US officials fear that an attack at this point in time would further damage the already brittle relationship between the allies. Several US intelligence officials involved in the CIA programme, which uses unmanned Predator and Reaper strike aircraft told The Long War Journal.

“There is concern that another hit [by the drones] will push US-Pak relations past the point of no return,” one official told The Long War Journal. “We don’t know how far we can push them [Pakistan], how much more they are willing to tolerate.”

One official was clear that the programme is “on hold” but that they would consider striking if a target of opportunity presented itself.

“We may strike soon if an extremely high value target pops up, but otherwise there is hesitation to pull the trigger right now,” the intelligence official said. The official refused to say which terror leaders would cause the US to reconsider the pause, and attack.

Relations between the two countries have been deteriorating over the past two years but the November 26 US airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani troops in Mohmand led to Pakistan shutting down the Chaman and Torkham (Khyber Pass) border crossings to Nato supply convoys, boycott of the Bonn conference and US evacuation of Shamsi Airbase in Balochistan.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 14th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Policy rethink: Government to redraw key pacts with US</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/306355/policy-rethink-government-to-redraw-key-pacts-with-us</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/306355/policy-rethink-government-to-redraw-key-pacts-with-us#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 11 00:32:27 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[kamran.yousaf]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=306355</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Top envoys submit proposals for reviewing cooperation with Washington.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan will renegotiate two key agreements signed with the United States and its Western allies nine years ago as part of a wider policy review following last month’s deadly Nato air raids on Pakistani border posts.


The agreements – both signed in 2002 during former military ruler General Pervez Musharraf’s regime to allow transit of supplies and logistics support for the US-led Nato forces – were considered crucial for the decade-long battle against the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

The decision to reconfigure those arrangements was taken at the end of a two-day envoys’ conference convened to revisit the country’s foreign policy against the backdrop of a deadly Nato incursion.

The conference was attended by over two dozen ambassadors and high commissioners serving in key world capitals.

A senior foreign ministry official said that a set of recommendations had been finalised for the government to re-evaluate and review cooperation with the US and Nato.

Recommendations include fresh agreements for Nato supplies and logistics support to the US, minimising the ‘CIA footprint’ in the country, seeking an honourable return of Afghan refugees and pursuing efforts to stabilise Afghanistan irrespective of Washington’s approach, according to the official, who was part of the consultations.

The conference also decided to seek a formal public apology from the US over the November 26 incident and firm guarantees that there would be no violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty in the future, added the official, who asked to remain anonymous.

The envoys, according to the participant, were of the view that the US appears to be uninterested in the Afghan reconciliation process.

However, irrespective of Washington’s approach, Islamabad must redouble its efforts to facilitate the Afghan reconciliation process, he added.

The conference recommended that the government reach out to Britain, Germany and other European countries, which have been making efforts to seek a peaceful end to the Afghan conflict.

The diplomats also urged the government to ensure that over 3.5 million Afghan refugees, still living in Pakistan, are repatriated to their homeland.

There are indications that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) may ask Pakistan to extend the repatriation of Afghan refugees’ beyond the 2012 deadline.

Delegates at the conference believe that the repatriation of Afghan refugees is necessary because, according to the government assessment 95 per cent terrorist attacks in Pakistan are traced back to the refugee camps.

The recommendations will now be presented before the parliamentary committee on national security, which has been mandated to redraft terms of engagements with the US. The concluding session of the conference was chaired by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, who described the Nato attack as a “huge setback to prospects of the much-needed cooperation among the important stakeholders.”

“Our cooperation with US/Nato/Isaf was based on respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Under no circumstances, could we accept flagrant transgression of our territorial frontiers. This remains our baseline and there can be no compromise on sovereignty, dignity and national honour,” Gilani said.

“We expect the US/Nato/Isaf inquiry that is being undertaken to reveal all the facts and provide answers to questions that our own investigations have raised,” he said.

Gilani maintained that recommendations finalised by the foreign ministry will be considered by a joint sitting of parliament.

A statement issued by the Foreign Office said, Sherry Rehman, ambassador-designate to the US, presented the recommendations furnished by the envoys’ conference to the prime minister.

(Read: Between ‘ghairat’ and strategy)

Published in The Express Tribune, December 14th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Tribune Take: Suspension of US aid, a case of bad timing</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/306046/tribune-take-suspension-of-us-aid-a-case-of-bad-timing</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/306046/tribune-take-suspension-of-us-aid-a-case-of-bad-timing#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 11 16:12:22 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[mahawish.rezvi]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=306046</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[US freeze on $700mln in aid to Pakistan is ill timed and will be perceived to be linked to the NATO attacks.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[In today’s episode of the Tribune Take we take a look at the latest freeze imposed by US lawmakers of $700 million in aid to Pakistan until it offers to help the fight against improvised explosive devices in the region. 

Huma Imtiaz, The Express Tribune‘s correspondent based in Washington DC discusses the conditions set in the bill and says it is a case of bad timing. She says the National Defence Act was being debated since early November. The Senate committee has asked Pakistan to curb the flow of ammonium nitrate across the border to Afghanistan. Commonly known as fertiliser, it is also a base component for IEDs, and the leading cause of US and Afghan casualties.

Imtiaz says this freeze will be perceived both in Pakistan and in the United States as another step in worsening relations between the two allies after the November attack by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) helicopters that killed at least 24 soldiers. 

Read Huma Imtiaz’s articles here.

Follow Huma Imtiaz on Twitter.

The Tribune Take daily news web show will appear on the tribune.com.pk home page.

The Take will feature in-depth interviews and analysis with editors and reporters who are covering the major stories, exploring front page events and major ledes. The news analysis covers the way The Express Tribune examines a story, how we cover it and why.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>US freeze on Pakistan aid unwise: Salim Saifullah</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/305969/us-freeze-on-pakistan-aid-unwise-salim-saifullah</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/305969/us-freeze-on-pakistan-aid-unwise-salim-saifullah#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 11 08:09:26 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[reuters]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=305969</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[I don't see any good coming out of this, says chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The decision to freeze $700 million in aid to Pakistan until it gives assurances it is helping fight the spread of homemade bombs in the region could hurt already strained ties, Pakistan Muslim League - Quaid (PML-Q) leader Salim Saifullah warned on Tuesday.

"I don't think this is a wise move. It could hurt ties. There should instead be efforts to increase cooperation. I don't see any good coming out of this," Salim Saifullah, chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, told Reuters.

The leaders of a US House-Senate negotiating panel have agreed to freeze $700 million in US aid to Pakistan until it offers to help in the fight against improvised explosive devices in the region, exerting more pressure on a troubled strategic ally.

Pakistan is one of the largest recipients of US foreign aid, and the cutback announced is only a small proportion of the billions in civil and military assistance it gets a year.

_____________________________________________

[poll id="592"]]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>US Congress panel agrees on Pakistan aid freeze</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/305920/us-lawmakers-freeze-700-million-to-pakistan</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/305920/us-lawmakers-freeze-700-million-to-pakistan#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 11 04:11:53 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[reuters]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=305920</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Wants regula­tion of smuggl­ing of raw materi­al for IEDs that target its forces in Afghan­istan.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[A move that hopes to curtail the spread of explosives might end up detonating an already-charged relationship.

A US Congressional panel has agreed to freeze $700 million in aid to Pakistan in a punitive measure that aims to stop the spread of improvised-explosive devices in Afghanistan, raw material for which, US lawmakers say, is smuggled from Pakistan.

The US wants “assurances that Pakistan is countering improvised explosive devices in their country that are targeting our coalition forces”, Representative Howard McKeon, a House Republican, told reporters.

The freeze was agreed upon by leaders of the armed services committees from both parties in the House and Senate.

Fertiliser smuggling

“The vast majority of the material used to make improvised explosive devices used against US forces in Afghanistan originates from two fertiliser factories inside Pakistan,” Republican Senator John McCain said in the Senate last week.

The US has urged Pakistan to regulate the distribution of ammonium nitrate to Afghanistan strictly. So far, Pakistan has only produced draft legislation on the issue.

Analysts say US demands will be tough to meet because of rampant corruption on both sides of the porous border that makes smuggling easy.

“We pay a 1,200-rupee bribe to the Pakistani Frontiers Corps on the border for every car carrying fertiliser,” said Kamal Khan, a businessman in the border town of Chaman.

Pakistan reacts

Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Salim Saifullah warned that relations, which are already at a low point, could worsen further following the decision by the US House-Senate panel.

“I don’t think this is a wise move. It could hurt ties. There should instead be efforts to increase cooperation. I don’t see any good coming out of this,” Saifullah told Reuters.

Foreign ministry spokesman Abdul Basit also suggested pressure from the US would hurt ties, saying Islamabad believes “in cooperative approaches”.

An official of the economic affairs division, meanwhile, told The Express Tribune that the freeze would affect the Pakistan Counter-Terrorism Capability Fund which was considered military aid but had never been at the disposal of Pakistani civilian or military authorities.

“It was not economic assistance. The amounts under this package were at the disposal of US CENTCOM” the official said.

‘Pakistan, US will patch up differences’

US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, meanwhile, said that the US and Pakistan “can patch up their differences.” According to a report in First Post, Panetta said that restoring the strained relationship with Pakistan was “critical” to long-term progress in Afghanistan, in his first statement since the November 26 Nato attack which killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

The secretary said, “I am confident that at one point, we are going to be able to restore our normal supply routes.”

However, the decision to freeze aid could prompt Pakistan to harden its stance towards Washington.

“I must say that the aeriel attacks on our army border posts on Nov 26, 2011, constituted a huge setback to the prospects of much needed cooperation between all important stakeholders.

&nbsp;

(Read: Pakistan-US relations)

(Reuters with additional reporting by our correspondent in Islamabad)

Published in The Express Tribune, December 14th, 2011.

______________________________________________

[poll id="592"]]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Message in a bottle: Embassies urged to think about Sindh</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/233748/message-in-a-bottle-embassies-urged-to-think-about-sindh</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/233748/message-in-a-bottle-embassies-urged-to-think-about-sindh#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 11 03:21:36 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Sindh]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=233748</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Majority of Sindhi people did not support the colonial commissionerate system nor the local government system.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Foreign governments were advised not to neglect the people of Sindh in an open letter addressed to foreign embassies in Islamabad by the think tank Sindh Democratic Forum (SDF) and Awami Jamhori Party (AJP).


AJP president Abrar Qazi and SDF president Zulfiqar Halepoto claimed that most Sindhi speaking people felt that the United Kingdom and the United States of America favoured a Karachi based political group and neglected them. The letter discussed the recent protests and the Sindhi point of view from 1947 to the recent flip-flop of the local government and commissionerate system.

The think tank and AJP mentioned the August 13 province wide strike against the reinstatement of the local government system and advised the embassies to not measure the ruling political parties success from their electoral vote bank. In the letter the SDP and AJP stated that a majority of Sindhi people did not support the colonial commissionerate system but they disliked the local government system even more. “[…] Musharraf’s system made the districts administratively and financially independent but undermined the provincial control,” they said in the letter. They added that with a demand for dividing the province in the background, it could manifest Sindhi reservations.

The think tank and political party claimed that the Sindhi nation could play an instrumental part in the  war against terrorism.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 18th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Half of US assistance went through Pakistani govt: USAID</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/233237/half-of-us-assistance-went-through-pakistani-govt-usaid</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/233237/half-of-us-assistance-went-through-pakistani-govt-usaid#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 11 05:31:35 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=233237</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[We always have a complex relationship with any govt when it comes to development planning and allocation of resources.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[As much as 50 per cent of the estimated $1 billion in US assistance was given directly to the government of Pakistan last year, Deputy Director for the Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) David McCloud said in an exclusive interview with The Express Tribune.


The Kerry-Lugar-Berman (KLB) bill is meant to provide Pakistan with $7.5 billion in US economic assistance. Since the furor over certain security-related clauses in the KLB bill that were seen as an “attack on Pakistan’s sovereignty”, many have been curious and critical of USAID’s programmes in Pakistan.

When questioned on the perceived delays of USAID programmes in Pakistan, McCloud called delays a relative term, but added that the reason many in Pakistan felt strongly about this is because the KLB legislation was passed, two years ago, in September 2009.

However, USAID received funding only ten months or so ago from this assistance package. In spite of this, said McCloud, USAID worked to quickly fund programmes such as the Gomal Zam and Satpara dams that were near completion and required resources, providing assistance to the Government to finish them.

“We were able to add 35megawatts to the national grid,” he added. McCloud also said that USAID was working on an irrigation scheme of 200,000 acres of land and providing water supply as well.

Considering the lack of public information available about how USAID and the government of Pakistan decide on projects, much curiosity surrounds the subject.

McCloud elaborated, “We recently had a strategy session with the Pakistani representatives and civil leaders, and we’ve decided on our priorities. We’ll be funding programs in the areas of energy, economic development and agriculture, stabilization works in border areas, education and health.”

On being asked whether it was easy to work with the government of Pakistan, the USAID aid representative replied, “our jobs are somewhat complicated by the various interests we have to meet and we have to kind of adjust how we do things. These are interests on both the US side and the Pakistan side.

We always have a complex relationship with any government when it comes to development planning and allocation of resources, and here we’re talking about a significant amount of resources.” McCloud, however, said that they had found sincerity, technical capability and political interest on the Pakistani side for the USAID to carry out its programs.

David McCloud has been working as a career USAID Senior Foreign Service Officer since 1988. He is currently the Deputy Director and the Deputy Assistant to the Administrator for USAID’s Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 17th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Strings attached: Talk of US aid scorecard rubbished</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/232458/strings-attached-talk-of-us-aid-scorecard-rubbished</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/232458/strings-attached-talk-of-us-aid-scorecard-rubbished#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 11 21:52:48 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[huma.imtiaz]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category><category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=232458</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[US official contradicts WSJ story claiming new ‘pay-for-performance’ mechanism.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Hours after The Wall Street Journal reported about a new ‘pay-for-performance’ mechanism put in place by the US government to gauge how best to measure Pakistani co-operation and make decisions on aid, a US defence official told The Express Tribune, “The decisions regarding our relationship with Pakistan are not made by looking at colours on a chart.”


Responding to the WSJ story, the defence official said: “A series of events in recent months have affected our bilateral relations with Pakistan and, as a result, the Pakistan Army has requested a ‘significant cutback’ of US military trainers and has limited our ability to obtain visas.”

The official indicated that any cuts in aid were directly connected to the reduction in trainers requested by Pakistan in the aftermath of the US raid on Abbottabad on May 2, and not a new US policy.

“While the Pakistani military leadership tells us this is a temporary step, the reduction in trainers is having the immediate consequence of preventing us from delivering a significant amount of military assistance. This was not a decision made by the United States and does not signify a shift in US policy,” said the US official.

On Monday, The Wall Street Journal had reported in its American edition that the US  government had created a ‘scorecard’ to gauge the level of Pakistani cooperation in the war against terrorism, and make aid decisions based upon a new ‘pay-for-performance’ mechanism.

The report stated that the mechanism involved creating four ‘buckets’ representing different areas of cooperation, with each bucket containing a ‘to-do’ list for Pakistan. It also emphasised, however, that there was no hard and fast rule connecting Pakistan’s performance on the scorecard and the aid Washington gives Islamabad.

The report seemed to contradict the vigorous campaign led by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other officials in President Barack Obama’s administration to prevent the United States Congress from imposing any sort of restrictions on US aid to Islamabad.

(Read: Clinton wants Obama to veto conditional aid bill)

Relations between both Pakistan and the United States have soured in the days since the Bin Laden raid, with many in Washington referring to this as the worst time in relations between both countries. In the months after the Abbottabad raid, the US placed a hold on $800 million of security assistance, of which $500 million had been earmarked for security equipment and military trainers.

(Read: Pakistan defiant as US halts $800 million military aid)

The US official said that Washington had communicated a number of times to Pakistani officials that the US requires their support to provide certain assistance. Additionally, said the official, the US is not prepared to provide military assistance at the previous pace, unless there were certain steps taken.

“Allowing an appropriate presence of US military personnel, providing necessary visas, and affording appropriate access are among the things that would allow us to effectively provide assistance,” he said.

Echoing some of what was said in the WSJ story, the defence official said that a number of areas had been identified in which both countries needed to take measures to take the relationship forward, which were being discussed privately at the highest levels.

The defence official said that the US was committed to providing US civilian assistance to Pakistan.

“We take a very clear-eyed approach to our relationship with Pakistan - recognising both the importance of our long-term relationship and the need for near-term action on key issues. The decisions regarding our important relationship with Pakistan are not made by looking at colours on a chart.”

Published in The Express Tribune, August 16th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>US aid to Pakistan based on conditions: Report</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/231806/us-aid-to-pakistan-based-on-conditions-report</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/231806/us-aid-to-pakistan-based-on-conditions-report#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 11 06:26:36 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=231806</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The White House is basing billions in on Islamabad's ability to meet a 'scorecard' of security objectives.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The White House has started conditioning  billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan based on progress on a secret scorecard of US objectives to combat militancy, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday. 

(Read: More strings on Pakistan aid)

The report said that the United States is asking Pakistan to take  specific steps to ease bilateral tensions.

The classified system, put in place after the US raid in Abbottabad that killed Osama bin Laden, signals a shift by the White House toward a  pay-for-performance relationship.

The report quotes a senior military official calling the unusual new approach "a hard-knuckled reflection of where we are right now" in relations.

US officials say a sharp breakdown in counter-terrorism cooperation  following the Abbottabad raid in May and the arrest of a CIA contractor in Pakistan  have led to aid conditioning.

The new approach represents an effort to salvage as much  counter-terrorism cooperation to deliver a deathblow to al Qaeda's remaining  leadership in Pakistan.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Foreign aid: ‘$37.1m in AIDS funds have been squandered’</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/219599/foreign-aid-%e2%80%9837-1-in-aids-funds-have-been-squandered%e2%80%99</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/219599/foreign-aid-%e2%80%9837-1-in-aids-funds-have-been-squandered%e2%80%99#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 11 22:34:23 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Sindh]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=219599</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Petitioner argues that Government is responsible for providing health care facilities, accountable for donated money.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Four international agencies donated $37.1 million to help people suffering from Aids, but most of it was wasted and a negligible amount was spent on screening of people, submitted, Syed Muhammad Iqbal Kazmi, of the Human Rights Commission for South Asia before the Sindh High Court (SHC) on Thursday.


Kazmi said that, under articles 37 and 38 of the Constitution, the government is responsible for providing health facilities. He said there are 153,000 HIV Aids patients in Pakistan of which 52% - 79,560 - are from Sindh. The petitioner claimed that the awareness campaign was also affected by the wastage of funds. He asked the court to find out where the $37.1 million was spent and to tell the respondents to allocate more funds for the benefit of Aids patients.

The bench issued notices to the Sindh finance, health, planning and development secretaries and the Sindh HIV Aids control programme manager for Aug 10.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 29th,  2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Standing up for allies: Clinton wants Obama to veto conditional aid bill</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/219105/clinton-vows-to-fight-republican-aid-cuts-for-pakistan-israels-neighbors</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/219105/clinton-vows-to-fight-republican-aid-cuts-for-pakistan-israels-neighbors#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 11 07:20:29 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[huma.imtiaz]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=219105</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[US Secretary of State writes to chairperson of Congressional committee to convey concerns.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that she will recommend to President Barack Obama that he veto any bill that proposes new conditions to US assistance to its allies, including Pakistan, in a letter that the top US diplomat sent to the chairperson of a Congressional panel that voted to approve the bill.


In a letter to Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (a Republican from Florida), the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Secretary Clinton said that the effect of the restrictions in the bill would be “debilitating to her efforts to carry out a considered foreign policy and diplomacy, and to use foreign assistance strategically to that end.”

With regard to Pakistan specifically, Clinton said that the bill “toughens the certification criteria for assistance under the current Kerry-Lugar-Berman Pakistan legislation and removes altogether that law’s waiver authorities.”

(Read: Distrustful allies: Another panel, another set of conditions)

While Clinton claimed to be speaking for herself, it would be highly unusual for a US Secretary of State to publicly ask for a presidential veto without a private assurance from the president that he would stand behind such a demand.

The 2012 Foreign Relations Authorisation Act, which passed the House committee on July 22, calls for US  assistance to Pakistan being subject to the Secretary of State testifying about Pakistan’s co-operation with the United States on “the existence of an official or unofficial support network in Pakistan for Osama Bin Laden”.

The bill asks Pakistan to provide the US with access to Bin Laden’s relatives, his Abbottabad residence and material collected from within the compound.

Other conditions laid out in the bill’s draft say that Pakistan should facilitate visas for “official US visitors engaged in counter-terrorism efforts and training or other cooperative programmes and projects in Pakistan.”

The bill also says that the US government officials must testify that Pakistan “is using defence articles and defence services provided by the United States under the Foreign Military Sales programme according to the end-use purposes, security requirements, and other terms and conditions agreed to by the United States at the time of transfer or by subsequent agreement.”

Democrats on the committee mostly voted against the bill while Republicans mostly voted in favour of it.

Pakistan Ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani told The Express Tribune that he agreed with the contents of Secretary Clinton’s letter to Ross-Lehtinen.

An aide to the chairperson told The Express Tribune in response to Secretary Clinton’s letter: “The Chairwoman is disappointed that the Obama administration would stand in the way of a bill that saves billions of dollars, mandates needed bureaucratic and policy reforms, enhances US security by placing conditions on US assistance to Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority, and blocks US tax dollars from being wasted on foreign organizations, programs, and governments that work to undermine US interests abroad.”

“I hear the demands of the American people to stop the spending spree, and that is why I am unwilling to agree to the huge overall spending increase that the President wanted in this bill. My legislation protects and advances our national security interests and priorities while rejecting the notion that it takes more government and more spending to do so,” the aide quoted the congresswoman as having said.

On Wednesday, the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee for House Appropriations Committee unanimously passed a bill that also slashed funding for the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development and proposed new conditions on US assistance to Pakistan.

The foreign affairs committee bill will be sent to the floor of the US House of Representatives for a vote, and then to the Senate. The Democratic Party controls the Senate, whereas the Republican Party has the majority in the House of Representatives.

Secretary Clinton called President Asif Al Zardari late on Thursday night, though it was not immediately clear whether the two leaders discussed the bill or wider US aid to Pakistan.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 29th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>US-Pakistan spy wars: Foreign aid workers face increased scrutiny</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/218257/us-pakistan-spy-wars-foreign-aid-workers-face-increased-scrutiny</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/218257/us-pakistan-spy-wars-foreign-aid-workers-face-increased-scrutiny#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 11 04:15:08 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=218257</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Stringent visa regulations and restrictions on military movement affecting aid delivery to flood hit areas: Guardian.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The escalating spy war between Pakistan and the United States has curtailed the work of charities battling to assist survivors from the country’s epic flood last year.


A report appearing in the Guardian said that stringent visa regulations and restrictions on movement by the military are causing long delays, increasing costs and affecting the delivery of aid to areas hit by floods and the conflict with the Taliban.

The newspaper cited the case of a US-based Catholic Relief Services worker who was brought to court for visa irregularities, imprisoned for nine days and deported. British agencies say their staff have fallen under the microscope of Pakistani intelligence services with officials visiting field offices and introducing restrictions on travel. Aid workers in Sukkur started to complain of regular visits from intelligence officers and police. In Jacobabad, agencies were told that visiting certain areas now required a “no objection certificate” – an official letter of permission.

“The authorities have started paying more attention to who is in the country and what they are doing,” said Michael O’Brien of the Red Cross.

Pakistani embassies abroad have also started to restrict access. “It’s making things extremely difficult,” said Paul Healy of Trocaire, an Irish aid agency. “Before, we could get a visa for a technical expert in one week; now it takes 10.”

The greatest impact is in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Aid workers now require permission to visit previously open areas, such as Kohistan and Shangla near the Swat Valley.

One European aid manager said he had been unable to send staff to his rural project for more than a month because of the restrictions. “We’re being bundled in with diplomats and other foreign-service nationals. They need to be educated about who we are – and that is not CIA agents,” he said.

The NDMA said it was issuing travel permits on a priority basis. “We are committed to facilitate aid workers in their pursuit of assisting affected communities,” said spokesman Brigadier Sajid Naeem. (With input from the news desk)

Published in The Express Tribune, July 27th,  2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Will the carrot of US aid be withdrawn?</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/217722/will-the-carrot-of-us-aid-be-withdrawn</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/217722/will-the-carrot-of-us-aid-be-withdrawn#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 11 17:01:04 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Syed Mohammad Ali .]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=217722</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Although US allied with a military government, it struggled to make Pakistan help it win ‘fight against...]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[American policymakers are currently considering placing much tighter restrictions on existing American aid to Pakistan. The reason why this generosity towards Pakistan is shrivelling has less to do with the actual need for aid in Pakistan and more to do with US displeasure that its aid is not achieving its underlying objectives.

US foreign aid serves as a powerful tool to entice developing countries to do its bidding. Pakistan has been a significant recipient of American military and development aid over the years, especially in times of strategic need. But we have also experienced the withdrawal symptoms of US assistance being abruptly halted when our decision-makers dared to defy Washington.

Consider, for instance, its generosity towards Pakistan during the proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, when Pakistan’s support to the US proved invaluable. After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, however, Pakistan was no longer a vital ally, so it did not pain Washington much to slap sanctions when Pakistan decided to go nuclear in reaction to developments in India.

The usefulness of Pakistan did not re-emerge until the US decision to invade Afghanistan in the post-9/11 context. This time around, however, circumstances have been much more complex. Although the US administration had no problems allying itself to another military government, it has since been struggling hard to make Pakistan help it effectively win the ‘fight against terrorism’.

The nuclear proliferation controversy, the subsequent political chaos, the increasing violence, the resentment over US drone strokes and the deteriorating economic conditions across Pakistan have hardly made things easy — and neither did the Raymond Davis incident or the May 2 raid in Abbottabad. Consequently, US lawmakers decided to hold off a third of $2 billion in security aid in a show of displeasure over lingering bilateral irritants, including the more immediate Pakistani decision to cut back permission to accept military trainers and place limits on visas for other US personnel.

Washington tried to assure Islamabad that the pause in military aid would not affect its economic support to the country. But local analysts were quick to point out that Pakistan’s economy will be hit if the US does not reimburse funds already spent on several operations on the Afghan border. Not releasing these payments, which were meant to go to the general treasury, would therefore further strain the country’s finances.

(Read: Suspension of US military assistance)

Moreover, the Republicans in the Congress are now pushing for a bill aiming to undercut the very spirit of the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009. The Democrats seem reluctant to place more restrictions on military and development aid to Pakistan. They rightly fear that disrupting aid to Pakistan would hinder the fight against terrorism and complicate the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. What is instead needed is for both the US and our own decision-makers to ensure effective use of the incoming aid, particularly the funds allocated for development purposes.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 27th,  2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>More strings on Pakistan aid</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/215643/more-strings-on-pakistan-aid</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/215643/more-strings-on-pakistan-aid#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jul 11 04:15:52 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[huma.imtiaz]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=215643</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Committee wants Islamabad to take action against Haqqani network, IED-producers.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The foreign affairs committee of the lower house of the United States Congress voted late on Thursday night on a bill that included provisions attaching several conditions to civilian aid to Pakistan.


The House Foreign Affairs Committee voted to pass the Foreign Relations Authorisation Act for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012. The bill was passed by a 23-20 vote, after two days of debate amongst a sharply divided committee split on party lines. Most of the Republicans voted in favour of the bill, with most of the Democrats voting against it.

The bill includes new conditions attached to US assistance to Pakistan. According to a draft of the bill, the Secretary of State must testify that Pakistan is co-operating with the United States on a range of issues, from access to Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, evidence collected from the site and his family, to action taken against the Haqqani network and the alleged network of cells that manufacture improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in the country.

During the debate on the bill, Democratic party member and Ranking Member of the committee Representative Howard Berman said that in the past few weeks, they have seen reports suggesting that Pakistani intelligence agencies tipped off insurgents that were running IED-producing factories and that the intelligence agency was linked to Saleem Shahzad’s murder.

“For far too long our relationship with Pakistan focused on supporting military and not civilian leaders. Under the previous administration we gave them a blank cheque,” said Berman.

However, said Berman, the United States cannot penalise the Pakistani people for the mistakes of its army. There must be a focus on strengthening Pakistan’s civilian institutions.

Berman also criticised the condition mentioned in the bill that requires Pakistan to issue visas to US counter-terrorism officers, saying that it strengthens the perception in Pakistan that the US is infringing on Pakistan’s sovereignty. Berman said that the issuance of visas is a decision for the Pakistani government to make.

The issuance of visas to US officials has been a bone of contention between the two countries for some months now. After the Raymond Davis affair, the Pakistan Army asked US trainers to leave the country, prompting the US Government to announce that there was a freeze on nearly $500 million in US assistance that was earmarked for military equipment for Pakistan and trainers.

Amongst other cuts to foreign aid, the Foreign Relations Authorisation Act also proposes slashing aid to countries that do not vote with the United States more than 50% of the time in the United Nations’ sessions.

The bill is now due to go to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote, following which the Senate will vote on it before the bill can become a law. The Republican party has a majority in the House of Representatives, whereas the Democratic party leads the Senate.

 

Published in The Express Tribune, July 23rd, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>What would happen if Pakistan and the US severed ties?</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/214435/what-would-happen-if-pakistan-and-the-us-severed-ties</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/214435/what-would-happen-if-pakistan-and-the-us-severed-ties#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 11 17:06:53 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[michael.kugelman]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=214435</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan can weather a US aid cut-off. Washington could use these monies to fund counter-terrorism efforts in Yemen.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Raymond Davis jailed in Lahore. Osama bin Laden discovered in the Pakistani Army’s front yard. US forces expelled. Strategic dialogue suspended. $800 million dollars in US military assistance withheld. And now a Washington-based Kashmir activist arrested for being an ISI operative.

Though US-Pakistan ties remain intact, hostility and mistrust are rapidly gnawing away at them. The troubled partnership hangs by thin threads, and one devastating blow could sever it completely. Most Pakistani and American officials cannot bear the thought of a shattered relationship. The fact is that neither nation’s interests would suffer if ties were severed; in fact, they may well be better served.

The paramount expectation of both governments is that the relationship helps attain their objectives in Afghanistan. For Washington, this entails using Pakistani roads to transport Nato supplies. However, if ties were ruptured, Washington would simply turn to Central Asian routes. Bilateral tensions have periodically prompted Islamabad to shut down Pakistani routes and vehicles are repeatedly attacked. Last weekend alone, one fuel tanker was bombed and another fired upon near Peshawar.

Washington also clings to the hope of a Pakistani Army assault on North Waziristan-based militants, who target US forces in Afghanistan. So long as the US-Pakistan relationship remains in effect, this represents an unlikely prospect, albeit one that cannot be ruled out. A collapse in ties would eliminate the possibility altogether — and this would be a good thing for both countries, given the unrest such an assault would unleash. A North Waziristan invasion would unite militant groups against Islamabad, intensifying violence that has already claimed 35,000 Pakistani lives. Additionally, an offensive would trigger a fresh exodus of militants into other tribal areas and across the Durand Line, where they would target international forces in Afghanistan, or add to the growing number of cross-border attacks.

Islamabad, meanwhile, expects the relationship to accord it a prime role in Afghan reconciliation. Yet there is little indication this will happen, given its disagreements with Washington over the role of the Haqqani network in future negotiations. Furthermore, America’s appetite for talks with the Taliban has dissipated after the group’s recent assassination campaign.

Another abiding wish of both capitals is to stabilise Pakistan — hence the infusions of aid into the country. Unfortunately, the current US economic assistance programme is limited and ineffective. If a rupture in ties ended such largesse, Islamabad would find replacement donors among the Chinese, Saudis, Britain’s Department for International Development, the IMF and the Asian Development Bank. Beijing, meanwhile, would fill the vacuum left by military aid cuts.

In short, Pakistan would be able to weather a US aid cut-off. Washington could use these monies to help staunch its spiralling debt and fund counterterrorism efforts in Yemen, which, according to the new US defence secretary, now poses more of a threat than Pakistan.

Given its radioactive reputation in Pakistan, Washington’s stabilisation-through-engagement efforts are bound to fail. The longer US-Pakistan ties persevere, the more anti-Americanism rises and militancy is fuelled. To be sure, America’s relations with Pakistan do not drive ethnic strife in Karachi or insurgency in Balochistan — yet they do stoke anti-state violence in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Fata and southern Punjab. They also deepen fears that Washington seeks to seize Pakistan’s nuclear assets — a perception that reinforces widespread hostility towards America and strengthens militant narratives.

Cutting government links would cool such sentiments, and deprive extremists of a chief rallying cry. In this calmer environment, Pakistan and the US could take stock of what went wrong and recognise that neither side enjoys the leverage it believes it wields over the other. Perhaps a cooling-off period, with time, could even lead to renewed ties — albeit ties infused with more realistic expectations of what the bilateral relationship can deliver.

 

Published in The Express Tribune, July 22nd, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Official reaction: Gilani ‘concerned’ over US aid cuts</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/209549/official-reaction-gilani-%e2%80%98concerned%e2%80%99-over-us-aid-cuts</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/209549/official-reaction-gilani-%e2%80%98concerned%e2%80%99-over-us-aid-cuts#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 11 03:57:58 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=209549</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Gilani expressed ‘extreme concern over the recent statements of American officials on suspension of military aid.’]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[In a first official reaction to US aid cuts, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani expressed ‘extreme concern over the recent statements of American officials on suspension of military aid.’


Addressing a news conference at the chief minister secretariat here on Wednesday, Gilani said that Pakistan is “in the middle of the war against terrorism.”

“We are fighting for the whole world and they benefit from [our contribution],” he said. “Though we are not officially informed, it is a matter of concern for us.”

On the endgame in Afghanistan, the premier said that Pakistan supports reconciliation in Afghanistan but wants to be included in the process.

“Pakistan must be included in evolving any Afghan-based strategy so that Pakistan is not destabilised from such policy, he said.

“We do not want that decisions which were taken thirty years ago be repeated again. Because of those decisions 3.5 million people are still living at refugee camps,” he added.

“The chief executive of Afghanistan and Pakistan, foreign ministers, army chief and heads of intelligence agencies must be present so the issues could be settled officially,” he added.

 

 

Published in The Express Tribune, July 14th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Pakistan defiant as US halts $800 million military aid</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/207874/pakistan-defiant-as-us-halts-800-million-military-aid</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/207874/pakistan-defiant-as-us-halts-800-million-military-aid#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 11 23:07:25 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=207874</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Suspended aid includes $300 million to reimburse costs of deploying more than 100,000 soldiers along the Afghan border]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[ISLAMABAD: The Pakistani military on Monday insisted it was capable of fighting Islamic militants without US assistance, hitting back after Washington said it would suspend $800 million worth of security aid.

"The army in the past as well as at present has conducted successful military operations using its own resources without any external support whatsoever," military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas told AFP.

US President Barack Obama's chief of staff, William Daley, confirmed in a television interview on Sunday that the United States has decided to withhold almost a third of its annual $2.7 billion security assistance to Islamabad.

Abbas, however, said the military had not been officially informed of the decision to suspend aid.

Relations between the key allies in the war on Al-Qaeda drastically worsened after US commandos killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan on May 2, humiliating the Pakistani military and opening it to allegations of complicity or incompetence.

Abbas referred AFP to an extraordinary statement issued by army chief of staff General Ashfaq Kayani on June 9 as part of the bin Laden fallout which recommended that US military aid be redirected towards civilians.

The US aid freeze was welcomed by Pakistan's neighbour and rival India.

"It is not desirable that this region had to be heavily armed by the US," External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna said, according to the PTI news agency, adding that the spending would upset the regional power balance.

The US administration on Monday, meanwhile, reiterated the reasons for its decision.

"When it comes to our military assistance, we're not prepared to continue providing that at the pace that we were providing it unless and until we see certain steps taken," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.

Islamabad's demand that about 100 US advisers leave Pakistani soil, effectively halting military training, was a bar to the prospect of improving "our cooperation in counterterrorism, in counterinsurgency," she added.

"We obviously can't do that in an environment where Pakistan has asked our trainers to go," Nuland told reporters.

The suspended aid includes about $300 million to reimburse Pakistan for some of the costs of deploying more than 100,000 soldiers along the Afghan border, according to The New York Times.

Pakistan says it has 140,000 soldiers in the northwest, more than the 99,000 American troops in Afghanistan, fighting a local Taliban insurgency.

The United States has long called on Pakistan to do more to crack down on militants, such as the Al-Qaeda-linked Haqqani network, who use its soil to attack within Afghanistan, but the army says its troops are too over-stretched.

But the relationship is complicated as the US uses Pakistan as a sea port and land corridor to truck about 50 percent of its military supplies into Afghanistan, although Taliban and other militants routinely attack the convoys.

Ties between the US and Pakistan are now at their lowest point since Islamabad officially broke with the Taliban and sided with Washington after the 9/11 attacks, analysts said.

One Western security official in Islamabad told AFP that bin Laden's killing had hardened America's approach to Pakistan, but the underlying difference was that the so-called allies cannot agree who or what the enemy really is.

"They don't have the same enemy and so relations will only continue along this chaotic path," the official said.

Analyst Rasul Baksh Raees acknowledged the deep antipathy to America that is prevalent in Pakistan, but added: "I think Pakistan and the United States will come to some kind of understanding soon to sort out irritants."

In Washington, Islamabad's ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani said civilian aid continued to flow and that "so far all suggestions for an aid cut-off for Pakistan have been defeated" as the US Congress looks at funding for next year.

On the ground Monday, two missiles fired from a US drone hit a compound in Pakistan's northwestern tribal belt on the Afghan border, killing at least 10 militants, local security officials said.

The missile strikes are hugely unpopular among a Pakistani public deeply opposed to the government's alliance with Washington and sensitive to perceived violations of sovereignty.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Withholding of aid not to affect tribal foray: Army</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/207148/withholding-of-aid-not-to-affect-tribal-foray-army</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/207148/withholding-of-aid-not-to-affect-tribal-foray-army#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 11 03:43:50 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[kamran.yousaf]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=207148</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Washington suspends $800m in military aid to Islamabad.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Pakistan Army has said that the suspension of US aid would not affect its ongoing campaign against militants in the tribal areas after a senior White House official confirmed that Washington was withholding nearly $800 million, including military assistance, to the country.


White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley told ABC television that Pakistan had “taken some steps that have given us reason to pause on some of the aid”.

But the Pakistan Army tried to downplay the development.

The chief military spokesman told The Express Tribune that any pause in US assistance would not hamper the ongoing offensives by the security forces against militants in the tribal areas.

“We have been doing these operations on our own in the tribal areas and we have sufficient resources to continue them,” insisted Major-General Athar Abbas, the Director General of Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).

He added that the US had not yet “informed us in writing about the withholding of military assistance”.

“We have achieved success in the past against al Qaeda in South Waziristan, Bajur and other tribal regions without any external assistance,” he said.

However, Maj-Gen Abbas said the ongoing operations against al-Qaeda in the tribal regions were not only in the interest of Pakistan but also the US and the world at large.

“Al Qaeda is a common enemy of both Pakistan and the US,” he argued.

Military sources say the US announcement was not unexpected.

“These are pressure tactics,” said a military official.  “They (Americans) may temporarily suspend our aid but in the long-run they cannot,” he emphasized.

The US is aware of the fact that Pakistan has a pivotal role to play in the endgame of Afghanistan, he added.

“The relationship is at standstill,” commented another military official, who requested not to be named.

Meanwhile, Pakistan has urged the United States to share intelligence about new al-Qaeda chief Ayman al Zawahiri, after Defence Secretary Leon Panetta claimed that Osama Bin Laden’s successor was hiding inside the country’s tribal belt.

The request from the military appears to suggest that the two countries have yet to establish a mechanism for joint operation against “high value targets” in Pakistan.

Following the death of al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden in a US raid in May, Islamabad and Washington agreed to form a joint intelligence team to hunt down top al Qaeda operatives in the country.

Prior to his arrival in Kabul on Saturday, Defence Secretary Panetta asked Pakistan to go after al Zawahiri, who is believed to be in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

“We expect the US intelligence establishment to share available information and actionable intelligence regarding al Zawahari,” said the military spokesman in a statement reacting to Panetta’s demand.

Maj-Gen Abbas added that sharing of information on the new al Qaeda chief would enable the army to carryout targeted operations.

Widening trust-deficit between ISI and the CIA has undermined ties between the two countries.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 11th, 2011.

_____________________________________________

[poll id="436"]]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Financial assistance to Pakistan: US Congress votes against proposal to cut aid</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/205848/financial-assistance-to-pakistan-us-congress-votes-against-proposal-to-cut-aid</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/205848/financial-assistance-to-pakistan-us-congress-votes-against-proposal-to-cut-aid#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 09 Jul 11 04:37:03 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[huma.imtiaz]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=205848</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Republican lawmaker proposed to decrease monetary help by $2b.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Two amendments proposing to cut $2 billion in US aid to Pakistan were voted against in the United States House of Representatives on Thursday, despite the discomfort expressed by several legislators about continuing aid to Pakistan after Osama bin Laden was found and killed in Abbottabad.


The amendments to the Defence Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2012 were moved by Representative Ted Poe, a Republican from the state of Texas.

The first amendment proposed slashing $1 billion from the funds that the US government gives countries that have partnered in helping the US in the war against terrorism. That amendment failed in a 131-297 vote.

The second amendment to the defence appropriations act moved by Poe proposed a cut of $1 billion in funds that the US gives Pakistan for its efforts in counter-insurgency activities.

Various members of the Senate and House have in the past called for a new look at aid being given to Pakistan after the Abbottabad raid in May that led to Osama Bin Laden’s death.

Amendments to money bills are frequently proposed by several members of the  435-member US House of Representatives, but most do not pass. Under the US political system, most of the deliberations and debates over specific bills takes place within the committees, both in the House and the Senate, where the bills originate.

Poe is not a member of any of the House committees that would be involved in drafting the defence budget, or even the overall US budget. He is also not a member of the Congressional leadership of the Republican Party.

Ted Poe holds the same seat in the United States Congress that was once held by Charlie Wilson, the congressman who was instrumental in securing US financial support for the mujahideen against the Soviet Union in the 1980s war in Afghanistan. Wilson’s efforts were chronicled in a book by George Crile titled “Charlie Wilson’s War”, which was also made into a movie by the same name.

The US government has halted the release of money under the Coalition Support Fund, as relations between the two countries have been marred by mistrust. US officials believe Pakistan overstates the expenses it incurs in the war against terrorism.

The fund was set up by the US Congress after the September 11, 2001, attacks to reimburse allies for costs in supporting the US-led war on militancy. Until May, Pakistan had received $8.8 billion from this fund since the attacks.

Last month, reports had emerged that the US has threatened that it will cut off civil and military aid to Pakistan after the country launched a crackdown against the “Central Investigation Agency (CIA) network” and expressed reluctance to go after the deadly Haqqani group based in North Waziristan Agency.

That the amendment was introduced by a Republican in Congress should worry policymakers in Islamabad, who have traditionally relied on support from that party since Democrats, the other major party in the United States, has historically been more hostile towards Pakistan.

While Republican leaders did not back the amendment, several influential lawmakers, such as Senator Lindsay Graham (Republican from South Carolina) and Senator Carl Levin (Democrat from Michigan) have questioned the US alliance with Pakistan and have begun to use increasingly hostile language about what they perceive to be Islamabad’s deceptive behaviour.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 9th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Twitter Town Hall: Obama defends US foreign aid</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/204419/twitter-town-hall-obama-defends-us-foreign-aid</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/204419/twitter-town-hall-obama-defends-us-foreign-aid#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 11 03:44:03 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category><category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=204419</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[One person questioned why the US gives aid to countries that &quot;waste it&quot;, citing Pakistan's example.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[President Barack Obama defended US foreign aid Wednesday as "a tiny amount that has a big impact" amid calls to trim overseas help to get cash-strapped Washington's fiscal house in order.

"It's something that, even in tough fiscal times, American needs to continue to do as part of our role as a global leader," he said as he took questions in a "Twitter Town Hall" from users of the popular microblogging site.

Obama noted that the US public has an "exaggerated" sense of the amount of money going to overseas aid, saying it represents only about two percent of the US government's annual budget, or one percent if narrowly defined.

"It's a tiny amount that has a big impact," he said in a video response to a questioner who urged that the United States stop giving money to countries that "waste" it and cited Pakistan among the culprits.

"America, to be a leader in the world, to have influence, to help stabilize countries and create opportunity for people so that they don't breed terrorists or create huge refugee flows and so forth -- it's smart for us to make a very modest investment in foreign aid," said Obama.

Various opinion polls have found the US public estimates foreign aid to total up to 20 percent of overall discretionary spending, and that voters favor cuts at a time when cherished programs are on the chopping block.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>US cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/198639/us-cost-of-war-at-least-3-7-trillion-and-counting</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/198639/us-cost-of-war-at-least-3-7-trillion-and-counting#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 11 05:37:58 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[reuters]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=198639</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Study takes comprehensive look at loss of life, dollars; war dead estimated at 224,000 to 258,000.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[When President Barack Obama cited cost as a reason to bring troops home from Afghanistan, he referred to a $1 trillion price tag for America's wars.

Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the US Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released on Wednesday.

The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies.

In the 10 years since US troops went into Afghanistan to root out the al Qaeda leaders behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, spending on the conflicts totaled $2.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion.

Those numbers will continue to soar when considering often overlooked costs such as long-term obligations to wounded veterans and projected war spending from 2012 through 2020. The estimates do not include at least $1 trillion more in interest payments coming due and many billions more in expenses that cannot be counted, according to the study.

In human terms, 224,000 to 258,000 people have died directly from warfare, including 125,000 civilians in Iraq. Many more have died indirectly, from the loss of clean drinking water, healthcare, and nutrition. An additional 365,000 have been wounded and 7.8 million people – equal to the combined population of Connecticut and Kentucky – have been displaced.

"Costs of War" brought together more than 20 academics to uncover the expense of war in lives and dollars, a daunting task given the inconsistent recording of lives lost and what the report called opaque and sloppy accounting by the US Congress and the Pentagon.

The report underlines the extent to which war will continue to stretch the US federal budget, which is already on an unsustainable course due to an aging American population and skyrocketing healthcare costs.

It also raises the question of what the United States gained from its multitrillion-dollar investment.

"I hope that when we look back, whenever this ends, something very good has come out of it," Senator Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee, told Reuters in Washington.

Sept 11, 2001: The damage continues

In one sense, the report measures the cost of 9/11, the American shorthand for the events of Sept 11, 2001. Nineteen hijackers plus other al Qaeda plotters spent an estimated $400,000 to $500,000 on the plane attacks that killed 2,995 people and caused $50 billion to $100 billion in economic damages.

What followed were three wars in which $50 billion amounts to a rounding error. For every person killed on Sept 11, another 73 have been killed since.

Was it worth it? That is a question many people want answered, said Catherine Lutz, head of the anthropology department at Brown and co-director of the study.

"We decided we needed to do this kind of rigorous assessment of what it cost to make those choices to go to war," she said. "Politicians, we assumed, were not going to do that kind of assessment."

The report arrives as Congress debates how to cut a US deficit projected at $1.4 trillion this year, roughly a 10th of which can be attributed to direct war spending.

What did the United States gain for its trillions?

Strategically, the results for the United States are mixed. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are dead, but Iraq and Afghanistan are far from stable democracies. Iran has gained influence in the Gulf and the Taliban, though ousted from government, remain a viable military force in Afghanistan.

"The United States has been extremely successful in protecting the homeland," said George Friedman, founder of STRATFOR, a US-based intelligence company.

"Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was capable of mounting very sophisticated, complex, operations on an intercontinental basis. That organization with that capability has not only been substantially reduced, it seems to have been shattered," Friedman said.

Economically, the results are also mixed. War spending may be adding half a percentage point a year to growth in the gross domestic product but that has been more than offset by the negative effects of deficit spending, the report concludes.

Comprehensive study

Some US government reports have attempted to assess the costs of war, notably a March 2011 Congressional Research Service report that estimated post-Sept 11 war funding at $1.4 trillion through 2012. The Congressional Budget Office projected war costs through 2021 at $1.8 trillion.

A ground-breaking private estimate was published in the 2008 book "The Three Trillion Dollar War," by Linda Bilmes, a member of the Watson Institute team, and Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. That work revealed how much cost was added by interest on deficit spending and medical care for veterans.

The report draws on those sources and pieces together many others for a more comprehensive picture.

The report also makes special note of Pakistan, a front not generally mentioned along with Iraq and Afghanistan. War has probably killed more people in Pakistan than in neighboring Afghanistan, the report concludes.

Politicians throughout history have underestimated the costs of war, believing they will be shorter and less deadly than reality, said Neta Crawford, the other co-director of the report and a political science professor at Boston University.

The report said former President George W. Bush's administration was "shamelessly politically driven" in underestimating Iraq war costs before the 2003 invasion.

Most official sources continue to overlook costs, largely because of a focus on just Pentagon spending, Crawford said.

"Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war," Obama said in last week's speech on reducing US troop levels in Afghanistan. At the very least, he was rounding down by $200 billion to $300 billion, when counting US congressional appropriations for the post 9/11 wars.

"I don't know what the president knows, but I wish it were a trillion," Crawford said. "It would be better if it were a trillion."

Elusive number

In theory, adding up the dollars spent and lives lost should be a statistical errand. The US Congress appropriates the money, and a life lost on battlefield should have a death certificate and a casket to match.

The team quickly discovered, however, the task was far more complicated.

Specific war spending over the past 10 years, when expressed in 2011 dollars, comes to $1.3 trillion, the "Costs of War" project found. When it comes to accounting for every dollar, that $1.3 trillion is merely a good start.

Since the wars have been financed by deficit spending, interest must be paid – $185 billion of accumulated so far.

The Pentagon has received an additional $326 billion to $652 billion beyond what can be attributed to the war appropriations, the study found.

Homeland security spending has totaled another $401 billion so far that can be traced to Sept 11. War-related foreign aid: another $74 billion.

Then comes caring for US veterans of war. Nearly half of the 1.25 million who have served in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan have used their status as veterans to make health or disability claims at an expense of $32.6 billion to date.

Those costs will soar over the next 40 years as veterans age. The report estimates the US obligations to the veterans will reach $589 billion to $934 billion through 2050.

So far, those numbers add up to a low estimate of $2.9 trillion and a moderate estimate of $3.6 trillion in costs to the US Treasury. No high estimate was offered.

"We feel a conservative measure of costs is plenty large to attract attention," said report contributor Ryan Edwards, an economist who studied the war impact on deficit spending.

Those numbers leave out hundreds of billions in social costs not born by the US taxpayer but by veterans and their families: another $295 billion to $400 billion, increasing the range of costs to date to some $3.2 trillion to $4 trillion.

That's a running total through fiscal 2011. Add another $453 billion in war-related spending projected for 2012 to 2020 and the total grows to $3.668 trillion to $4.444 trillion.

The human toll

If the financial costs are elusive, so too is the human toll.

The report estimates between 224,475 and 257,655 have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, though those numbers give a false sense of precision. There are many sources of data on civilian deaths, most with different results.

The civilian death toll in Iraq – 125,000 – and the number of Saddam's security forces killed in invasion – 10,000 – are loose estimates. The US military does not publish a thorough accounting.

"We don't do body counts," Tommy Franks, the US commander in Iraq, famously said after the fall of Saddam in 2003.

In Afghanistan, the civilian death count ranges from 11,700 to 13,900. For Pakistan, where there is little access to the battlefield and the United States fights mostly through aerial drone attacks, the study found it impossible to distinguish between civilian and insurgent deaths.

The numbers only consider direct deaths – people killed by bombs or bullets. Estimates for indirect deaths in war vary so much that researchers considered them too arbitrary to report.

"When the fighting stops, the indirect dying continues. It's in fact worse than land mines. The healthcare system is still in bad shape. People are still suffering the effects of malnutrition and so on," Crawford said.

Even where the United States does do body counts – for the members of the military – the numbers may come up short of reality, said Lutz, the study's co-director. When veterans return home, they are more likely to die in suicides and automobile accidents.

"The rate of chaotic behavior," she said, "is high."]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>US aid to Pakistan: ‘Corruption becoming a hurdle in implementation’</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/187330/us-aid-to-pakistan-%e2%80%98corruption-becoming-a-hurdle-in-implementation%e2%80%99</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/187330/us-aid-to-pakistan-%e2%80%98corruption-becoming-a-hurdle-in-implementation%e2%80%99#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 12 Jun 11 05:32:35 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[huma.imtiaz]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=187330</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Key issue in CRS report is the conditions on the aid, applicable on security related assistance, arms transfers.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[In its new report on US aid to Pakistan, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy wing of Congress, has cited corruption, lack of transparency, certification by the US government on Pakistan’s requirements to act against terrorist groups and a lack of economic reforms as some of the biggest hurdles in the implementation of US aid to Pakistan.


According to the report, the Obama administration has asked for $2,965 million for fiscal year 2012 for aid to Pakistan. Of $2,965 million, nearly 46 per cent is for economic assistance, and 54 per cent for security assistance.

The report highlights various categories that the Obama administration has requested money for, including the Economic Support Fund for $1,360 million and other sectors such as humanitarian aid, health and education services and governance.

In military aid, the US government has requested $350 million for foreign military financing (FMF), $5 million for international military education and training and $23.4 million for nonproliferation, counterterrorism, demining, and related programmes (NADR).

A key issue highlighted in the report is the conditions on US aid to Pakistan which are applicable on security-related assistance and arms transfers. According to the US law, the secretary of state has to annually certify that Pakistan is cooperating with the US to dismantle networks of nuclear proliferation and provide information to the US about any individuals involved in such networks. Additionally, Pakistan has to demonstrate “sustained commitment and significant efforts in combating terrorist groups”, including “ceasing support, by any elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agency, to extremist and terrorist groups, particularly to any group that has conducted attacks against the US or coalition forces in Afghanistan, or against the territory or people of neighbouring countries”.

Groups such as al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad must also be prevented against carrying out attacks in neighbouring countries. While US Secretary of State Hillary Hilary Clinton certified to Congress in March 2011 that Pakistan was fulfilling these requirements, the report highlights that the certification has been met with scepticism among Congressmen, especially in light of Osama Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad.

The CSR report cites that $8.9 billion has been disbursed to Pakistan as of May 2011 in the Coalition Support Funds thus far. The report also highlights Pakistan’s purchases of F-16 fighter jets and armaments out of its own pocket, in addition to those purchased with US aid grants. 

 

Published in The Express Tribune, June 12th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Can Punjab break the US aid begging bowl?</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/184802/can-punjab-break-the-us-aid-begging-bowl</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/184802/can-punjab-break-the-us-aid-begging-bowl#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 11 18:24:18 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Syed Mohammad Ali .]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=184802</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[It remains to be seen how the resource gap resulting from the rejection of American assistance will be filled.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The discovery and killing of Osama bin Laden has sparked a debate both in the US and Pakistan about our post-9/11 strategic relationship. Most Pakistanis now increasingly see aid as a crude attempt to buy friendship and to alleviate antipathy towards US drone attacks in our tribal areas.

Although foreign aid has long been used by powerful countries to win and reward allies, the use of aid has become increasingly controversial, especially at a time when the US itself is broke and its official audits show that many of the nations to whom the money is given to do not hold positive views about the US, and nor is the aid used for the purposes intended.

In view of these ongoing developments, the Punjab government has announced its intention to break the begging bowl of aid. The provincial government qualified this assertion: The province would not accept US aid, but remains open to loans and grants from other sources such as the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank and other friendly countries.

While some bilateral aid from other countries may still trickle into Pakistan, many of our current donors would be much less generous without US backing. The influence of the US on multilateral agencies like the IMF and the World Bank is also well established.

The Punjab government claims that its rejection of conditional American aid would build pressure on the federal government to follow suit. Yet the fact remains that the national economy, including that of our largest province, is faring miserably at the moment.

Certainly, denying people who already have little access to basic amenities, which aid can help secure, seems unfair. It is these people who would bear the brunt of such a move. It remains to be seen what will become of the health, education and solid waste management projects that were supposed to be funded by US aid, and how the resource gap resulting from the rejection of American assistance will be filled.

Punjab’s chief minister claims that the province will achieve self-reliance by effectively taxing urban property, cutting non-development expenditures, and taking more stringent austerity measures. He has also demanded recovery of loans written off on a political basis. Although these are welcomed moves, one wonders if their half-hearted implementation will enable the Punjab government to stand on its own feet. Currently, the province is confronting a massive overdraft and sluggish growth, growing poverty and unbearable inflation. Yet the provincial government remains non-committed on the implementation of tax on income from agriculture. Neither have any decisions been taken to address the problem of inequitable land holdings which are a root cause of rural poverty. Nor has any intention to curb incentives and concessions enjoyed largely by big businesses been made public.

If the biggest province in our country is really serious in its resolve to become self-reliant, it needs to go beyond the political rhetoric and squarely deal with the practical issues mentioned above, while assuring that it is not the poor people who have to face the brunt of the knee-jerk bravado.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 9th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>The politics of aid</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/178259/the-politics-of-aid</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/178259/the-politics-of-aid#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 29 May 11 17:02:14 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[Shahid Javed Burki]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=178259</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[American assistance to Pakistan is overestimated, as press does not distinguish commitments from disbursements.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[In a speech given recently at the Woodrow Wilson Centre in Washington, I made two points about the flow of aid to Pakistan. I said that the American assistance to the country was overestimated since some of the numbers that were discussed in the press — in particular the American press — did not differentiate between commitments and disbursements. The programme envisaged under the Kerry-Lugar bill was moving very slowly. There were several other aspects of aid-counting that had to be factored in before aggregate numbers were used.

My second point was to suggest that China had become the largest provider of aid to Pakistan and would become even larger, once the various programmes and projects that were in the planning stage were implemented. The second point drew some attention from some people in the audience. In one email, I was told that the numbers available in various documents suggest that China was nowhere near the position I had assigned the country in my comments. This reaction reflected less than full understanding of what is really meant by ‘aid’. I think this subject is important enough to be given some careful thought, especially by those in Islamabad’s official establishment who have the data to estimate the amount of total aid the country receives from various bilateral and multilateral sources.

Aid is commonly associated with what is generally called budgetary and balance of payments support. This assistance may come with policy conditions. Once they are met, the provider of aid writes a cheque, the proceeds from which can be used in any way the recipient wishes. This is the way the International Monetary Fund (IMF) aids the countries in economic distress. In Pakistan’s long history with the Fund, the country has seldom succeeded in completing what the IMF calls the “programme”. This is likely to happen once again, as the Fund is not satisfied with Pakistan’s performance and has suspended disbursements from the $11 billion plus programme it signed with Islamabad in late 2008.

The World Bank began to provide non-project assistance in the early 1980s when its introduced ‘structural adjustment lending’. The idea was to provide free money to the recipients when the needed structural adjustments were promised. Mahbubul Haq and I — both of us then worked in the Bank’s policy department — opposed this move by suggesting that this kind of money would be wasted and also develop poor habits. I believe our assessment was right. Pakistan is a good example of a county where this has been the outcome.

Aid has always been difficult to define. Several decades ago, Mahbubul Haq had the Planning Commission carry out a study in which he drew a sharp distinction between gross and net flows of aid. In determining net flows, he factored out from the total the amount that went back to the donors in various forms. Often — at least at that time — aid came to be tied to the procurement of goods and commodities being financed. Their prices could be much higher than those in the international market place. Some of the project aid came with the condition that the consulting services being provided would come from the donor, even when those skills were available from within the country receiving aid.

Haq’s work in the Planning Commission had an important impact in the sense that the members of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), the organisation of rich countries, pledged that they would not tie their aid to procurement from the countries providing it. Development agencies such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank insisted on the provision that the procurement from their funds would be on the basis of international competitive bidding — contracts go to the cheapest bidder.

This last provision brings me to case of China’s assistance to Pakistan. There is an impression that the Chinese assistance is more talk than substance; that the country promises more than it gives. This feeling is based on a misunderstanding of what is really meant by assistance. The Chinese are interested in giving mostly project support. It was, after all, Mao Zedong who said that it is much better teaching the needy to fish, rather than giving them fish to eat. Beijing considers budgetary support equivalent to giving fish and project assistance teaching the recipient to fish. One of the few occasions the Chinese departed from this practice was when I went to Beijing to seek their support to help us service debt we had with such ‘preferred creditors’ as the IMF and the World Bank. This was in late 1996, when I had taken leave of absence from the World Bank to manage Pakistan’s finance and development. We were then very close to bankruptcy. Telling me that they would not let Pakistan default while I was in charge, they made a deposit of $500 million in our account with the Federal Reserve System in New York. That saved the situation for us.

Today, China is by far the largest provider of project assistance to Pakistan. The financing of these projects comes mostly from Chinese sources which combine loans at commercial rates with grants. This helps to lower the cost to Pakistan in terms of both the amount of interest paid on the loan, as well as the period over which it needs to be serviced. China, as is well known, has financed the construction of several high profile projects — roads, nuclear stations, dams and railway equipment. For proper aid accounting, the terms of financing for each of these projects will need to be compared with alternative sources of supply and the difference between the two would constitute the component of aid.

If this calculation is done, it will show that an impressive amount of assistance is coming to Pakistan from China. Having some firm estimates — something the economic affairs division should be able to do — will put in perspective the amount of help Pakistan is receiving from China compared to other donors. Since our foreign policy focuses on economic relations, such an estimate will put the sources and amounts of aid the country receives in the right context.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 30th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>India again denounces US military aid to Pakistan</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/177698/india-again-denounces-us-military-aid-to-pakistan</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/177698/india-again-denounces-us-military-aid-to-pakistan#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 May 11 10:43:39 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[reuters]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=177698</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[India has denounced US military aid to Pakistan which it says is being used by Islamabad against Indian interests.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[India has again denounced US military aid to Pakistan which it says is being used by Islamabad against Indian interests, Indian media reported on Saturday.

"This (aid) is being used against us, which is not a nice gesture on the part of (the) US and we have raised this issue with them many times," Defence Minister AK Antony was quoted as saying by the Indo-Asian News Service.

US aid to Pakistan is viewed with concern in India and has been an irritant as Washington looks to upgrade strategic and economic ties with the country.

India's charges against Islamabad received a boost after the star witness in a Chicago trial linked to the Mumbai attacks testified that Pakistan's spy agency and elements in the military coordinated to plot the Mumbai raid that killed at least 166 people.

Pakistan has received $20.7 billion worth of US assistance over the past decade, about two-thirds of it military aid.

US lawmakers have questioned the continuation of that aid since the discovery and killing by US forces of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad earlier this month.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Pak-Us Relations: Aid cuts will imperil ties: Rumsfeld</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/173685/pak-us-relations-aid-cuts-will-imperil-ties-rumsfeld</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/173685/pak-us-relations-aid-cuts-will-imperil-ties-rumsfeld#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 May 11 12:24:39 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=173685</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Rumsfeld says aid reduction may harm Pak-US relationship.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The US should not rush into judgment on Pakistan and resort to short-sighted measures like aid reduction that may imperil an important relationship, former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld said. “We ought to take a deep breath and recognise that it would make us feel good for about five minutes if we cut off aid to Pakistan,” he said in an appearance on Fox News channel.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 22nd, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Permanence in a world of flux</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/172599/permanence-in-a-world-of-flux</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/172599/permanence-in-a-world-of-flux#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 11 19:50:20 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[tanvir.ahmad.khan]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=172599</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[The Chinese promise of eternal friendship is predicated on Pakistan putting its own house in order.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[We live in times when alliances are made and unmade with notable abandon. Mirroring the footloose nature of hot international capital, major powers opt for instant advantage with little regard for the fortunes of smaller states tied to them, all in the name of national interest.

In this world of flux, Premier Wen Jiabao says; “no matter what changes might take place in the international landscape, China and Pakistan will remain forever good neighbours, good friends, good partners and good brothers”. The Chinese have always combined this reiteration of permanence with sober, behind -the- scenes sharing of their considered perceptions of a fast changing world, including a redefinition of their own responsibilities and interests as a global power. They have not preached to their Pakistani friends, much less interfere in their internal affairs, but they have counselled well. Interestingly, strong Chinese support comes at a time when western voices critical of Pakistan-China friendship are more strident than usual. Pakistan, it has been alleged, is playing the China Card to pressurise the US. Prime Minister Gilani had gone to China, as indeed President Zardari to Russia, as a result of continuing consultations but sections of the media and the odd Republican Congressman in the US chose to ring alarm bells that Pakistan was shifting gear. A major European media network asked me why Pakistan was provoking America by these visits.

What concerns me more is the growing number of “academic studies” coming out of the West that claim that the Chinese are tired of their Pakistani connection and that this historic relationship is in decline. Their arguments are easily summarised at the risk of some over simplification. The only reason why the two nations got together, it is said, was their common hostility to India after 1962. Secondly, the geopolitical situation has changed and China now seeks broader alignments and is wary of being tethered to Pakistan. Third, China is a trade-driven state and the target of $70 billion turn-over  in trade with India is a dynamic militating against Pakistan particularly when Pakistan is still unable to generate trade of even $ 10-15 billion per annum. Fourth, the extensive, albeit, ambivalent, Sino-US interaction views Pakistan, as an unruly, unpredictable nuclear- armed state that has to be managed firmly in the interest of regional stability. Fifth, the complicity of insurgent groups in the badlands of north-west Pakistan in attempts to radicalise Chinese Muslims and Pakistan’s alleged failure to provide full security to 13,000 Chinese workers in Pakistan continue to strain Sino-Pakistan alliance. Sixth, Pakistan has not been able to deliver on crucial projects like Gwadar forcing China to defer any further investment in it for the time being.

The fact of the matter is that none of this is news to Islamabad and Beijing and the two sides are constantly devising measures to eliminate hurdles. China has redoubled its efforts to help Pakistan improve its economy. A couple of more jolts from Washington and Pakistan’s bureaucracy would have no option but to overcome its legendary inertia and think beyond Washington and the IMF. The answer does not lie in a Chinese budgetary-support dole-out to replace the IMF but to enter into joint ventures for enhancing bilateral trade and extending Pakistan’s outreach. Washington and Beijing use the quadrilateral structure comprising US, China, Pakistan and India to pursue long term policy objectives; Washington does not want to shut down any of the doors within its parameters despite its big caveats on issues like the nuclear reactors and the Sino-Pakistan defence links. Above all, there is little doubt that the Chinese promise of eternal friendship is predicated on Pakistan putting its own house in order. Mr Gilani has to move beyond the self-hypnotism of rhetorical exchanges and get down to work to make the promise of permanence real.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 21st, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Punjab cancels 6 MoUs with US</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/172580/punjab-has-cancelled-6-mous-with-us-sanaullah</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/172580/punjab-has-cancelled-6-mous-with-us-sanaullah#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 11 11:29:53 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[reuters]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Punjab]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=172580</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Punjab Law minister says aid agreements cancelled in in protest over the secret raid that killed Osama bin Laden.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Punjab has cancelled six aid agreements with the United States in protest over the secret US raid that killed Osama bin Laden, its law minister said on Friday.

Pakistan hailed Bin Laden's death as a big step against militancy but was incensed by the raid in Abbottabad, saying it was a violation of sovereignty.

"We have cancelled six MoUs (memorandums of understanding) with the United States in the fields of health, education and solid waste management," said Rana Sanaullah, Law Minister of Punjab.

"We have conveyed their concerned departments about our decision. This is our protest against the Abbottabad incident."

The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) has called for a review of the country's ties with Washington, urging the government to reduce reliance on foreign aid.

A PML-N spokesman said Punjab had been expected to get Rs20 billion rupees for welfare projects in the next three years from the United States.

Bin Laden's presence in Pakistan has led to calls by some US congressmen to cut aid to the country, which is heavily dependent on American financial assistance.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>US assistance: Differing perceptions</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/171966/us-assistance-differing-perceptions</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/171966/us-assistance-differing-perceptions#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 May 11 18:04:24 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[ishrat.husain]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=171966</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[It may sound ironical to suggest that it would be better for both the US and Pakistan if US assistance is terminated.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Bilateral official economic assistance from developed to developing countries has always been loaded with political and foreign policy overtones of donors. In Pakistan, US economic aid has become a highly contentious issue due to the widely differing perceptions about its motivation and consequences among the donor and recipient countries. The debate about the future of this assistance has been reignited after Osama bin Laden’s capture by the US.

The popular narrative in the US as articulated by the media, a few think-tanks and congressmen rests on the premise that Pakistan is almost at the brink of bankruptcy and it is the US assistance that is providing the lifeline for sustenance. The penalty for deviant behaviour on the part of Pakistan should be severe and aid should be suspended, curtailed or withdrawn as it is only through these punitive measures that Pakistan would fall in line. Many other Americans believe that helping Pakistan is simply not worth the time ‘or money’ and that by doing so their hard-earned tax money is going down the drain. Given the high domestic unemployment rate and growing fiscal deficit it is better to stop the aid to Pakistan. A more benign variant prevailing among some US politicians and scholars is that Pakistan has been let down too many times by the US in the past and the best way to demonstrate our long term strategic commitment to Pakistan is to help the country in its pursuit of economic development. Both these approaches — stick or carrot — are based on the tacit assumption that the quantum of US assistance is so significant that it would be able to invoke the alteration in Pakistan’s behaviour. The fact of the matter is that — US aid does not help the government’s precarious fiscal situation in any meaningful way as only 12-15 per cent of the total amount is channelled for budgetary support.

In Pakistan also, there are several viewpoints about the efficacy and impact of US aid. A large number of Pakistanis are deeply resentful that the US has been able to obtain a disproportionate leverage on Pakistan’s policy space because of this paltry sum. The sovereign autonomy and dignity has been sacrificed and the country has been relegated to the status of a client state or ‘rent-a-state’. The long-term stability of the country is at risk because of this painful obsequiousness and submissive alliance.

Another group believes that by entangling in the war on terror, Pakistan has suffered enormous losses financially, economically, socially and psychologically and the compensation being paid by the US for this colossal damage amounts to almost nothing. It is estimated that during 2000-10, the US spent Rs2,000 billion in Afghanistan, Iraq and on beefing up domestic security. Pakistan’s share of this amount was Rs20 billion or 0.1 per cent, while the country has lost 35,000 civilians and soldiers, in addition to suffering disruption and dislocation of the economy, displacement of population, a several-fold increase in expenditure on military operations and internal security, almost virtual boycott of Pakistan by external visitors and a state of perpetual fear, etc. Out of the amount received, Rs8 billion under the Coalition Support Fund was simply reimbursement of the expenditures incurred on logistical support and supplies to Nato and US troops. A third group believes that despite the late Mr Holbrooke and Secretary Clinton’s best efforts, the divergence between the development priorities of the government of Pakistan and US aid remains wide. This is borne out by the report of the Centre for Global Development — the leading US think-tank on development issues (Note: I must disclose that I was a member of the Study Group that produced this Report). In assessing US assistance to Pakistan, the report notes that “the integration of development, diplomacy and defence has muddled the development mission and left the programme without a clear, focused mandate. The Kerry-Lugar legislation lists no fewer than 11 different objectives of US policy. As a result, the aid decisions are too often politicised and subject to short-term pressures. Overall, the programme ends up trying to do too much, too quickly.”

In light of these widely different perceptions it may sound ironical to suggest that it would be better for both the US and Pakistan that the US bilateral official assistance is terminated sooner than later. The growing ‘trust deficit’ between the two countries will be bridged when the US Congressmen would not have a stick to hurl at Pakistan and the pressure tactics they apply too openly and too frequently would come to an end. Ordinary US citizens would have no qualm that their taxes are being wasted in a country for which they have very little empathy. In Pakistan, the political leadership would have to take some tough decisions to mobilise domestic resources rather than always choosing the soft option of foreign aid as a substitute. The Pakistani intelligentsia would no longer be concerned about the loss of honour, sovereignty and dignity in exchange for a few billions of dollars.

How about the question so common in the vocabulary of both the Americans as well as many Pakistanis: Will Pakistan be economically able to cope with the loss of US assistance? The facts speak for themselves. Although the Congress authorised a tripling of development assistance in 2008 to $1.5 billion per year, the actual disbursements in Fiscal Year 2009 were $275 million and $676 million in Fiscal 2010, including $500 million spent on flood relief. Assuming that the whole $3 billion in economic and military assistance (including $1 billion under the Coalition Support Fund) is disbursed fully, this accounts for less than seven per cent of the total foreign exchange earnings of the country. The increase in export revenues and remittances in the current year was almost twice that amount. Had foreign direct investment flows not been disrupted (Pakistan received Rs5 billion in 2006-07) US aid would have become even less significant in the overall capital flows. World Bank data shows that net Official Development Assistance (ODA) from all sources to Pakistan in the last five years has averaged less than 1.5 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI). In 1990, ODA formed 2.7 per cent of GNI. Aid per capita from all sources in 2009 was $14 only. US aid also does not help the government’s precarious fiscal situation in any meaningful way as only 12-15 per cent of the total amount is channeled for budgetary support. These facts do not, by any means, indicate that the Pakistani economy will collapse if the US decides to withdraw its assistance.

When Secretary Clinton visits Pakistan we should thank her for the hard work the US administration did in getting the Kerry-Lugar legislation approved, but indicate that Pakistan would like to unilaterally withdraw from receiving assistance under it. Our strategic dialogue should continue to explore other avenues of cooperation. It is fair to assume that this step would lead towards building a strong and lasting relationship between the two countries based on mutual respect.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 20th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Is Pakistan worth the aid, asks US</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/171887/is-pakistan-worth-the-aid-asks-us</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/171887/is-pakistan-worth-the-aid-asks-us#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 May 11 06:52:27 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[reuters]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=171887</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[In this part of the world, in many parts of the world, there's always a tendency to pad the contracts: US official.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Pakistan, US weigh aid calculus has air forces, and $30 million for roads and $15 million for bunkers that were not actually built.

The navy received more than $19,000 per vehicle each month just to maintain and operate a fleet of 20 passenger vehicles.

Between 2004 and 2007, Pakistan billed the US government $200 a month per soldier in food costs – it fluctuated between $500 and $800 for sailors. That's between 2.5 and 9.6 times Pakistan's per-capita annual income, which was just over $1,000 in 2009.

When the Office of Defense Representative-Pakistan (ODRP) began to more rigorously verify the Pakistani claims after that 2008 GAO report, the percentage of claims that were rejected doubled in six months to 6 percent and then more than tripled to 22 percent in the next six-month period.

For example, in the first two quarters of fiscal year 2010, Pakistan submitted claims of $531 million and $530 million. The United States paid out $263 million and $326 million.

"We certainly get claims that we have questions about," a US official in Islamabad told Reuters. The official asked for anonymity to speak candidly about the relationship.

Another senior US official dryly added: "In this part of the world, in many parts of the world, there's always a tendency to pad the contracts."

The more rigorous accounting and slower disbursement has added another irritant to the uneasy partnership. Pakistan is at pains to point out that much of the money it gets is not really aid but a reimbursement of expenses it incurs in fighting the US-led war on terrorism.

Pakistan's Army spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said the military gets reimbursed for things like fuel, maintenance of equipment and vehicles, and maintaining soldiers in the field.

He said the money goes first to the finance ministry, and then to the defence ministry before it is allocated to the military.

Pakistan is one of the top recipients of US aid along with Egypt and Israel, but it has not bought America much popularity. Opinion surveys show an overwhelming majority of the Pakistani public holds an unfavourable view of their ostensible ally.

"In the long run, in the historic perspective, will we be able to say it was worth it? Or will historians be able to say that?" mused the senior US official. "I really don't know at this point."]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>No foreign aid: Punjab prepared ‘to face consequences’</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/171436/no-foreign-aid-punjab-prepared-%e2%80%98to-face-consequences%e2%80%99</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/171436/no-foreign-aid-punjab-prepared-%e2%80%98to-face-consequences%e2%80%99#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 May 11 04:33:14 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[shamsul.islam]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Punjab]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=171436</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Only 18 ongoing projects will be affected if foreign aid is stopped: Law minister.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Law minister Rana Sana Ullah Khan said on Wednesday that only 18 ongoing development projects would be affected by the provincial government’s decision of not relying on foreign aid. He said these projects would be completed after funds were generated for them from province’s resources.


He said the provincial government had decided to “to say good bye” to foreign assistance in the interest of the country’s future. He said the government had made alternative arrangements and would mobilise its own resources to make sure that development works were not affected. He said non-development expenditures would be reduced in this regard.

He rejected that the decision was meant to embarrass the federal government and said that the move was meant to rid the country from foreign countries interference.

Sanaullah also attended the 8th convocation of the Pakistan Medical College on Wednesday. He was the chief guest at the occasion. .

Published in The Express Tribune, May 19th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Revisiting Pak-US relationship: Debate on aid to Pakistan rages on in the US</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/171130/us-senators-urge-clinton-gates-to-review-pakistan-aid</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/171130/us-senators-urge-clinton-gates-to-review-pakistan-aid#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 May 11 02:18:32 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=171130</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[US senators ask Clinton, Gates to ensure Pakistan is doing its utmost to fight extremists, before disbursing more aid.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[As US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and US military’s top officer Admiral Mike Mullen advised against cutting off aid to Pakistan, American senators urged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Gates to make sure Pakistan is doing its utmost to battle extremists before disbursing more US security aid.


The lawmakers, all Democrats, wrote Clinton and Gates a letter on Tuesday in the wake of the raid in which Osama bin Laden was killed.

“We recognise the strategic importance of Pakistan,” wrote the group, which include Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus.

“However, we cannot overlook the logical conclusion of recent events, which is to question whether the Pakistani security establishment is ardently working to prevent terrorist groups from operating on Pakistani soil,” they said.

The senators called for reviewing Pakistan’s efforts to end its support for extremist groups, prevent al Qaeda, the Taliban and others from operating on Pakistani soil, and bolster its counter-terrorism and anti money-laundering laws.

“We believe that conducting this assessment will be crucial for the Congress to determine whether to provide the full range of security assistance,” they said in the letter.

Pakistan received a total of $2.7 billion in aid and reimbursements from Washington in fiscal year 2010, which ended on October 1, making it the third-largest recipient of US aid after Afghanistan and Israel.

Finding Bin Laden in Pakistan “indicates, at a minimum, a lack of commitment by the Pakistani military to aggressive cooperation with the United States,” the senators said. “This is particularly concerning as the Congress again considers increasing security assistance to Pakistan,” they said.

Not cutting off aid

Gates and Mullen advised against cutting off aid to Pakistan for its failure to go after militant leaders, saying Washington had important interests at stake and that Islamabad had already been “humiliated” by the raid.

“I think we have to proceed with some caution,” Gates said. “My own view is we need to continue the assistance that we have provided that benefits the Pakistani people,” he said.

The Pentagon chief, in his first press conference since bin Laden was killed on May 2, argued against punishing Pakistan by suspending aid as Islamabad had suffered a blow as a result of the covert raid.

“If I were in Pakistani shoes, I’ve already paid a price. I’ve been humiliated, I’ve been shown the Americans can come in here and do this with impunity,” he said.

As to whether Pakistani authorities knew the hiding place of bin Laden, Gates said: “It’s my supposition, I think it’s a supposition shared by a number in this government, that somebody had to know, but we have no idea who and no proof and no evidence.”

He said he shared the “frustration” felt by US lawmakers towards Pakistan but stressed that President Barack Obama’s administration could not make allegations without evidence.

“It’s hard to go to them with an accusation when we have no proof that anybody knew.”

Mullen said it would take time to learn who may have known about bin Laden in Pakistan as intelligence agencies are still poring over a large amount of material found at the al Qaeda leader’s compound.

 

 

Published in The Express Tribune, May 19th, 2011.

&nbsp;]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Symbolic gesture: Punjab to turn down US grants, but not loans yet</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/171461/symbolic-gesture-punjab-to-turn-down-us-grants-but-not-loans-yet</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/171461/symbolic-gesture-punjab-to-turn-down-us-grants-but-not-loans-yet#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 May 11 19:53:51 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[anwer.sumra]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Punjab]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=171461</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Rs19b grants for south Punjab education and municipal projects to be rejected.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The Punjab government has decided to turn down a $223 million (Rs19.08 billion) grant available from the United State Agency for International Development (USAID) for two development projects in southern Punjab, but had not yet made a decision to turn down US loan facilities, The Express Tribune has learnt.


“The issue regarding loan facilities from the US will be decided at the appropriate time. Presently only grants will not be accepted from this country,” said a senior Finance Department official on condition of anonymity.

The Punjab government has decided not to accept the grants as part of its new policy of “breaking the begging bowl,” he said.

The financial managers of the Punjab government and USAID representatives had been negotiating for 18 months for the provision of the grants.

In September 2010, the government and USAID signed an agreement under which the province would receive $147 million (Rs12.58 billion) to finance the Southern Punjab Basic Education Project, which aims to improve the education and literacy rate in the region.

In December 2010, the Punjab government and USAID signed another agreement for a $76 million (Rs6.5 billion) grant for the Southern Punjab Municipal Services Project, which would improve sanitation (both sewer and refuse), access to potable water and healthcare and transportation issues.

The government has now shelved these projects but will likely make allocations for the projects in the upcoming budget, the Finance Department official said, adding that the funds would be provided in phases.

Meanwhile, the Punjab government will continue to accept loans and grants from other countries and multilateral donors like the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Japanese International Cooperation Agency, International Fund for Agriculture Development and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Pakistan is a member of the board of directors of these donor agencies, which extend soft loans, he said.

The Punjab government will also continue to accept loans and grants from friendly countries like China, Turkey and Saudi Arabia which do not attach conditions to their financial assistance, the official added.

The Punjab government has received 15 million pounds in financial year 2010-11 from the UK Department for International Development (DIFD) for an education project recently inaugurated by Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif.

The official said that the extra financial burden as a result of the rejection of these grants could be met in the next three years through better financial management. The government is considering introducing a new tax on the rich to raise revenue, he said. He said the rejection of the grants would not result in a “huge burden” as the Punjab government was not receiving “handsome aid” from the US directly. The US provided such funds to the federal government, which then gave Punjab a share, he added.

The Punjab government has ceased special allowances extended to officials posted in various foreign and local-funded projects to save Rs.1.5 billion annually and this amount would go towards alleviating the financial shortfall, he said.

The provincial government had already got Rs390 billion in loans from various donor agencies and friendly countries to execute development projects in irrigation, education, health, roads and livestock development, he said. These were soft loans at interest rates ranging from 1.0 to 1.7 per cent payable in 20 to 30 years. The Punjab government pays Rs8 billion interest annually on these loans, he said.

Punjab government spokesman Senator Pervaiz Rasheed said the province would accept only those grants and loans which did not come with political conditions attached. He said the effect of refusing the grants would be compensated through rightsizing and rationalisation of current government expenditure.

“The projects in southern Punjab will not be halted. The government will instead arrange for funds for the projects through local resources,” he added.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 19th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>US should continue Pakistan aid: Robert Gates</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/171493/us-should-continue-pakistan-aid-robert-gates</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/171493/us-should-continue-pakistan-aid-robert-gates#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 May 11 19:15:19 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=171493</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[&quot;We do have significant interest in Pakistan. My own view is we need to continue the assistance&quot;.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that continued American aid to Pakistan is of "significant" US interest, and that he saw no evidence that Islamabad knew the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden before a US raid.

Appearing before lawmakers, Gates said he could understand Congress’ frustration with Pakistan over the war against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban but cautioned against cutting off assistance.

"I think we have to proceed with some caution," Gates said. "We do have significant interest in Pakistan. My own view is we need to continue the assistance that we have provided that benefits the Pakistani people."

As to whether Pakistani authorities knew the hiding place of Bin Laden before the US raid in which he was killed this month, Admiral Mike Mullen said "I've seen no evidence since the bin Laden raid that indicates that the top leadership knew bin Laden was there", which Gates seconded, saying "I've seen no evidence at all to support that notion and that I've seen some evidence on the contrary".

Gates noted Pakistan had already paid a significant price in embarrassment and damage to its reputation as a result of the raid.

"If I were in Pakistani shoes, I would say I've already paid a price. I've been humiliated. I've been shown that the Americans can come in here and do this with impunity," he said.

Gates also said Pakistanis had indicated a willingness to go after Al Qaeda or Afghan insurgent leaders, and it was important to give them an opportunity to do that.

"The Pakistanis over the last couple of weeks have expressed the view that they are willing to go after some of these people and we should not repeat the Bin Laden operation because they will undertake this themselves," he said.

He added that he shared the "frustration" felt by US lawmakers towards Pakistan but stressed that President Barack Obama's administration could not make allegations without evidence.

"It's hard to go to them with an accusation when we have no proof that anybody knew."

Mullen said it would take time to learn who may have known about bin Laden in Pakistan as intelligence agencies are still poring over a large amount of material found at the Al-Qaeda leader's compound.

Earlier in the day, US senators, in a letter to both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, had urged them to make sure Pakistan is doing its utmost to battle extremists before disbursing more US security aid.

The senators called for reviewing Pakistan’s efforts to end its support for terrorist groups, prevent al Qaeda, the Taliban and others from operating on Pakistani soil, and bolster its counter-terrorism and anti money-laundering laws.

Pakistan received a total of $2.7 billion dollars in aid and reimbursements from Washington in fiscal year 2010, which ended on October 1, making it the third-largest recipient of US aid after Afghanistan and Israel.

Finding bin Laden in a Pakistani military town “indicates, at a minimum, a lack of commitment by the Pakistani military to aggressive cooperation with the United States,” the senators said.

“This is particularly concerning as the Congress again considers increasing security assistance to Pakistan,” they said.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Islamabad admits mistakes were made: Kerry</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/171005/islamabad-admits-mistakes-were-made-kerry</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/171005/islamabad-admits-mistakes-were-made-kerry#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 May 11 02:27:18 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=171005</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Sparring over military billing, Pakistani officials deny they are bilking the US.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[US Senator John Kerry on Tuesday said he gathered “no indication” during his trip to Islamabad that high-level Pakistani officials had been complicit in hiding Bin Laden.


“They admit things went wrong, they understand that mistakes were made, and they’re going to try to get at it. I’m convinced that they want to find out because they want to hold those folks accountable,” he said.

Terming the Pakistan-US relationship at a critical juncture, US Senator Kerry said both countries need to get it right.

Senator Kerry’s remarks come amid reports of a tussle between the US and Pakistan over Islamabad’s claims for financial compensation for operations against militants.

The Wall Street Journal, citing internal Pentagon documents, reported that Washington has quietly rejected more than 40 per cent of over $3.2 billion in claims submitted by Pakistan for military gear, food, water, troop housing and other expenses.

The claims in question were filed from January 2009 through June 2010.

Citing the documents and US officials, the Journal said that Pakistan had submitted dubious claims or sought funding for actions that Washington did not see as related to the so-called war on terror. In one case, the Pakistani army sought $50 million for “hygiene and chemical expenses”, of which Washington agreed to pay just $8 million, the newspaper cited.

In another case, the US paid millions to refurbish four helicopters to help Pakistan transport troops to the rugged mountains along the Afghanistan border where it is battling the Taliban and al Qaeda militants.

But Pakistan diverted three of the aircraft to peacekeeping duties in Sudan, operations funded by the United Nations, the Journal said, citing US officials.

The newspaper said US denial rates have climbed from a low of 1.6 per cent in 2005 to 38 per cent in 2008 and 44 per cent in 2009.

Pakistani officials deny they are trying to bilk the US and insist that the increased US scrutiny has offended Islamabad, reported the Journal.

“People have to give a receipt for every cup of tea they drink or every kilometre they drive,” it quoted a Pakistani official as saying.

Briefing his congressional colleagues about the assurances he received from Pakistani officials during his visit to Islamabad, Kerry said Pakistan was stepping up efforts to battle extremists and stabilise Afghanistan.

“Some of the things that are very important to us strategically, but they are not appropriate to discuss publicly,” said the US senator.

Kerry, newly returned from a whirlwind visit to both countries, said he had heard “frustration” from top Pakistani officials about the US raid that killed the al Qaeda leader, but had made clear Washington expects more from its ally.

“This relationship will not be measured by words or by communiques after meetings like the ones that I engaged in. It will only be measured by actions,” he said.

Kerry said Pakistani leaders had pledged new efforts to cooperate with Washington.

“They are concrete, they are precise, they are measurable and they are in many cases joint – and we will know precisely what is happening with them in very, very short order,” he said.

“I’m very, very confident about a number of those things having a major impact on the things we need to do,” said Kerry, who promised to detail the new initiatives to his colleagues in a closed-door session expected next week.

Kerry said high-level US-Pakistan talks “that will begin very, very soon” would touch on “some larger issues” and added that if they go well then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will decide “when and if” to visit Pakistan.

US lawmakers’ frustration was evident on Tuesday as Kerry’s committee quizzed US President Barack Obama’s former national security adviser, retired General Jim Jones, about prospects for improved US-Pakistan ties.

“You have a partner who can seem, as some have said, to be both firefighter and arsonist simultaneously,” said US Senator Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the panel and Obama’s former foreign policy mentor.

Jones repeatedly questioned the judgment of Pakistani leaders - saying that “logic doesn’t always play a dominant role” in decision-making in Islamabad – but said he hoped they would forcefully cast their lot in with Washington. “I’m hopeful that at long last, cooler heads will prevail and logic will come into the equation and our colleagues in Pakistan will see the future with a little bit more of a strategic vision,” said Jones.

Pressed on whether Washington should freeze aid, Jones replied “I would counsel against what might be a very tempting thing to do” and warned against “long-term consequences” for US interests in the region.

Kerry said Pakistan’s role would affect Obama’s plans to start withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan in July and hand over security to Afghan forces in 2014.

“We will pursue our policy in Afghanistan to the best of our ability no matter what,” the senator said, but the Pakistanis “hold the key to the fastest, least costly, most effective” drawdown.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 18th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>US, Pakistan sparred over military billing: Report</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/170409/us-pakistan-sparred-over-military-billing-report</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/170409/us-pakistan-sparred-over-military-billing-report#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 11 06:48:52 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[afp]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=170409</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Washington has quietly rejected more than 40 per cent of over $3.2 billion in claims submitted by Pakistan.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[The United States and Pakistan have been sparring over Islamabad's claims for financial compensation for military operations against militants, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

The report comes as relations between the two anti-terror allies have frayed following the killing of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in a US commando operation launched without Islamabad's knowledge.

The newspaper, citing internal Pentagon documents, said Washington has quietly rejected more than 40 per cent of over $3.2 billion in claims submitted by Pakistan for military gear, food, water, troop housing and other expenses.

The claims in question were filed from January 2009 through June 2010.

Citing the documents and US officials, the Journal said Pakistan had submitted dubious claims or sought funding for actions that Washington did not see as related to the so-called War on Terror.

In one case, the Pakistani army sought $50 million for "hygiene and chemical expenses," of which Washington agreed to pay just $8 million, the Journal said.

In another case, the United States paid millions to refurbish four helicopters to help Pakistan transport troops to the rugged mountains along the Afghanistan border where it is battling Taliban and al Qaeda militants.

But Pakistan diverted three of the aircraft to peacekeeping duties in Sudan, operations funded by the United Nations, the Journal said, citing US officials.

The newspaper said US denial rates have climbed from a low of 1.6 per cent in 2005 to 38 per cent in 2008 and 44 per cent in 2009.

Pakistani officials deny they are trying to bilk the United States and insist that the increased US scrutiny has offended Islamabad, the Journal said.

"People have to give a receipt for every cup of tea they drink or every kilometer they drive," it quoted a Pakistani official as saying.

Cash-strapped Pakistan has relied on $18 billion from the United States since the September 11, 2001 attacks, when Pakistan officially ended support for Afghanistan's Taliban and agreed to work with Washington.

In 2009, Congress also authorised $7.5 billion to help bolster the weak civilian government by building schools, roads and democratic institutions.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>It’s time to say ‘no’ to foreign aid: Shahbaz Sharif</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/169730/no-to-foreign-aid-for-punjab-shahbaz-sharif</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/169730/no-to-foreign-aid-for-punjab-shahbaz-sharif#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 11 04:30:40 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[express]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Punjab]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=169730</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Chief Minister Punjab says country should focus on trade rather than foreign aid.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Terming foreign aid a root cause of all the issues the country is facing, Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif on Monday said that Pakistan needs to stop relying on aid.


“It is time to break the begging bowl and achieve self-reliance in the interest of complete independence,” he said while addressing a press conference after a meeting of the provincial cabinet. Shahbaz said that the Punjab cabinet has decided to ‘give shape’ to this proposal and has also recommended that the resolve to end dependence on foreign aid be forwarded to Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) chief Nawaz Sharif so that his party could give an approval to the decision after thorough reflection.

The chief minister said that refusing foreign aid is not easy but this is what every Pakistani wants. He said that he was confident that the decision taken by the most populated province of Pakistan would prove to be a starting point of a national movement for economic independence, national sovereignty and security of the country.

“But the decision to give up foreign aid does not mean that relations with other countries should be impaired. This decision is aimed at the promotion of trade instead of aid,” Shahbaz said. He said Pakistan is fighting for its existence therefore the entire nation, especially the elite, would have to make sacrifices, adding that problems as a result of disregarding foreign aid would only be transitory.

If the nation wants to live with honour and dignity it would have to revisit its priorities, the chief minister said. He added that whether it was the Raymond Davis issue, drone attacks or the Abbottabad operation, the nation has solutions to all such problems.

Shahbaz said that Pakistan was subjected to drone attacks due to the aid it is getting. He said that such incidents could not be stopped through protest resolutions, condemnatory statements or rallies taken out in luxurious cars. “If the nation decides to depend on its own resources and works with sincerity and commitment, Pakistan could also achieve self-reliance like China, Japan or Germany,” he said.

He said that the centre and provinces are not apart so the decision of the Punjab cabinet is the voice of the entire nation. Earlier, the cabinet gave approval to three amendment bills of the Board of Revenue with regard to devolution of powers under the 18th amendment and the amendments in Provincial Assembly Punjab Privilege Act 1972.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 17th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item><item>
			<title>Americans and Pakistan, post-Bin Laden</title>
			<link>https://tribune.com.pk/story/169822/americans-and-pakistan-post-bin-laden</link>
			<comments>https://tribune.com.pk/story/169822/americans-and-pakistan-post-bin-laden#comments</comments>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 11 19:27:02 +0500</pubDate>
			<dc:creator>
				<![CDATA[michael.kugelman]]>
			</dc:creator>
			<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://tribune.com.pk/?p=169822</guid>
			<description>
				<![CDATA[Americans view Pakistan discouragingly and this will influence domestic politics as US administration revives ties.]]>
			</description>
			<content:encoded>
				<![CDATA[Once again, Washington is in a tizzy about Pakistan.

US officials have long had nightmares about loose nukes and radical Islamist coups. For nearly a decade, they have shouted themselves hoarse about militant sanctuaries in the tribal areas. Several months ago they were infuriated by the arrest of a CIA contractor. And now, they are smarting over l’affaire Abbottabad.

Still, they are resolute. Even with many around town calling for aid cut-offs, the Obama administration is feverishly attempting to salvage a relationship that is haemorrhaging mistrust (witness its endorsement of John Kerry’s latest fence-mending trip to Pakistan). We must get it right in Pakistan, Washington declares, because this, is the one nation where we cannot afford to fail. Abandonment is not an option.

Alas, across much of America, such words fall on deaf ears. Outside the Beltway, Pakistan inspires little more than ignorance or hostility, if not outright indifference. And with the 2012 congressional and presidential elections looming, the views of the American masses will be instrumental in helping determine the fate of one of the world’s most tortured relationships.

Most Americans do not follow foreign affairs — a consequence of geography and the fact that our nation has largely been spared from acts of international terrorism or war on its soil, 9/11 and Pearl Harbour notwithstanding. While media attention after Bin Laden’s death is fixated on reactions of New Yorkers and Washingtonians, it is the Muslim World that has been most traumatised by al Qaeda violence in the post-9/11 era.

So, while Washington may brand Pakistan as the world’s most dangerous nation, relatively few Americans actually know much about it.

To the extent that Americans are aware of Pakistan, it is through a highly reductive lens of insecurity and terrorism —which invites hostility. Such sentiment is not limited to the hoi polloi; recall Congressman Howard Berman — of Kerry-Lugar-Berman fame — speaking of sending billions of aid dollars down a “rat hole”. Earlier this year, a Gallup survey found that only 18 per cent of Americans have positive views of Pakistan — a new low. In fact, only once, over the last 11 years, has the figure surpassed 30 per cent. No wonder so many Americans believe Pakistan sheltered Osama bin Laden; attributing his presence there to mere state incompetence would be too kind.

This should not suggest that Americans obsess around the clock about scary Pakistan. Unlike their countrymen in Washington, Americans are relatively uninterested in national security matters. In polling conducted last month, only one per cent of Americans cited terror or national security as their most important concern (and after Bin Laden’s death, many Americans have claimed to feel safer and more confident about combating global terror). The economy, by far, ranked as the most important concern — hardly a revelation at a time of near-double-digit unemployment and a $14 trillion-and-fast-rising national debt. Hence the reason why, across much of the nation, talk about Bin Laden’s capture petered out after a few days. Americans are consumed by more immediate concerns closer to home, from food inflation to job prospects.

This all holds unsettling implications for US-Pakistan relations. Islamabad has had enough trouble garnering support in some of its chief objectives, such as securing greater market access for textile exports and completing a civil nuclear deal. Such goals — along with continued aid — can only be consummated with the blessing of Capitol Hill, and Congress is held directly accountable by its constituents every two years — including next year. Given the impending elections, the gloomy US economic climate and America’s discontent and disinterest about Pakistan, one can expect Congress to grow more sympathetic to the belief, of many Americans, that helping Pakistan is simply not worth the time or money.

International politics may dictate that Washington pull out all the stops to resuscitate its floundering relationship with Islamabad. However, in the months ahead, domestic anti-Pakistan sentiment will enjoy increasing sway over American policymakers. As one of them once famously observed, all politics is local.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 17th, 2011.]]>
			</content:encoded>
			
			</item>	</channel>
                </rss>
