US woos Pakistan with $2b military package

Clinton praises Islamabad's effort against militants.


Agencies October 23, 2010

WASHINGTON:


The United States announced $2 billion in military aid for Pakistan on Friday as the two countries sought to dispel doubts about Islamabad’s commitment to uprooting insurgents from safe havens on its soil.

“The United States has no stronger partner when it comes to counterterrorism efforts against the extremists who threaten us both than Pakistan,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

The five-year military aid package, which must be approved by Congress, would complement $7.5 billion in civilian assistance already cleared by US lawmakers. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi rejected naysayers who argue that Islamabad’s heart is not in the fight against the insurgents.

“There are still tongue-in-cheek comments, even in this capital, about Pakistan’s heart not really being in this fight. I do not know what greater evidence to offer than the blood of our people,” Qureshi said, sitting next to Clinton. “Prophets of doom are back in business painting doomsday scenarios about our alliance. They are dead wrong,” he said.

Announcement of the military assistance, for the years  2012 to 2016, came at the formal opening of the third round of the US-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue, a series of talks to expand relations beyond the fight against insurgents.

Clinton said 13 working groups focusing on issues from water to energy had agreed on plans to immunise 90 per cent of Pakistani schoolchildren, improve electricity supplies and help farming families get back on their feet after devastating floods in August.

But looming over the talks is the nine-year-old war in Afghanistan and the fight against al Qaeda and other extremist groups along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border that have strained relations between Islamabad and Washington. The Obama administration has pointedly pressed Pakistan for more aggressive action against safe havens in North Waziristan, saying in a recent report to Congress that Pakistani forces had avoided direct contact with al Qaeda and related militants, in part for political reasons.

Stepped up attacks in the region by US drone aircraft have aggravated public opinion in Pakistan and relations deteriorated after a cross-border helicopter incursion killed two Pakistani border guards in Kurram Agency.

The incident prompted Pakistan to close a border crossing near the Khyber Pass to Nato supply convoys for 10 days until apologies were made by US and Nato officials. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates apologised again for the incident when he met Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani earlier this week.

But US officials continue to press Pakistan for more action and express growing concerns about the possibility of an attack on US soil plotted by Pakistan-based groups, similar to the failed bombing in New York’s Times Square this year.

Clinton told officials at the plenary session of the strategic dialogue on Friday that the two sides had “productive discussions” this week about “our work together to combat terrorism and eliminate violent extremism and the organisations that promote it that are operating in Pakistan.”

“These groups threaten the security first and foremost of the people of Pakistan, of neighbours, of the United States and indeed of the world,” Clinton said.

Pakistani officials raised their own concerns, saying increasing violence in disputed Kashmir threatened the stability of the region.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 23rd, 2010.

COMMENTS (29)

Muhammad Ahsan Khan | 13 years ago | Reply //Pakistan army can handle any situation provided they are given adequate resources.// It will be more appropriate to say "enough cash money" in place of "adequate resources". Army can handle? yes; but "will finish" is not sure!
Zahid Hussain | 13 years ago | Reply Unfortunately, the bi-lateral and tri-lateral strategic dialogues followed by mutually agreed or forced actions are meaningless due to the regional and global nature of the conflict that involves almost a dozen countries with their respective conflicting priorities in Great Game and the Greater Middle East. These conflicting priorities have a history of their own. There are a number of serious research papers and initiatives on the subject by highly credible think tanks and parliamentary platforms which have thoroughly discussed each and every perspective of the issue with the help of scenario construction, analysis of causes, listing of visible and possible consequences, workable solutions with multiple options and platforms for dialogue. Unfortunately, decision makers in Washington do not either read or take these research papers seriously both for known as well as unknown reasons. They are trying to manufacture a robot without putting all its parts together. Can one expect that robot to get manufactured and start functioning? RESULT: Trillions of dollars are being wasted. Pumping of billions of dollars without any specific strategic plan developed through a consensus developing process of dialogue among all the players in the GG and GME will backfire as all the strategies in the past have disappointingly failed due to pre-identified logical reasons recorded by outstanding experts of geo-strategic research platforms. Having said that, I will emphasize Immediate focus on the urgent need of initiating an open strategic dialogue between all the players directly or indirectly involved in the conflict on a five point agenda: Consensus on a set of unanimous political, social, economic, military and diplomatic priorities. A well researched multi-sourced history of the failure of such initiatives in the past is available due to reasons mentioned above. Immediate restructuring of military alliance with the replacement of ISAF with a joint military peace mission consisting of GCC countries and countries around Afghanistan. Formation of a diplomatic mission consisting of GCC countries and countries around Afghanistan to form committees of Influence Groups representing leaders of the major resistance (insurgent) groups to initiate a dialogue for immediate cease fire, internal peace and reconstruction in Afghanistan. Confidence building measures to motivate and mobilize people in Afghanistan to support democratization of Afghanistan and actively participate in social and economic sector development activities. AND Transparent neutrality and above board peace and progress process YOU MAY CONCLUDE: “…I HAVE A DREAM!” It obviously does not happen in international relations.
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ