US panel rejects bid to end Pakistan aid
The House Foreign Affairs Committee easily rejected the measure, with five lawmakers voting yes and 39 voting no. But the bill in its current form would still impose tighter controls over aid, making it contingent on measurable progress by Pakistan.
Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican from California, had offered the amendment to a spending bill for the year starting in October that would have barred any US funds to provide assistance to Pakistan.
Rohrabacher raised questions about how Pakistan was using assistance from the United States at a time that Washington is seeking to curb spending to tame a ballooning debt.
President Barack Obama's administration recently suspended about one-third of its $2.7 billion annual defense aid to Pakistan. But it has assured Islamabad it is committed to a five-year, $7.5 billion civilian package approved in 2009 that aims to build schools, infrastructure and democratic institutions.
The rival Republican Party controls the House and has drafted a measure, which remains in the spending bill, that would also cut off civilian aid unless Pakistan is certified to be fighting militants.
But even if it passes through the committee, the measure's prospects are uncertain. Obama's Democratic Party controls the Senate, where Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry is a staunch advocate of civilian support to Pakistan.
Democratic lawmakers argue that civilian aid is crucial in the long-run to strengthen democratic institutions and raise educational levels in Pakistan in hopes of reducing the appeal of Islamic extremists.
COMMENTS (12)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1737528702-0/fizza-(73)1737528702-0-405x300.webp "article")
1737527082-1/sydney-(1)1737527082-1-165x106.webp "article")
1737527558-0/sidra--(11)1737527558-0-270x192.webp "trump grants full pardon to silk road founder ross ulbricht")
1737452260-0/Gaddafi-stadium-(2)1737452260-0-270x192.webp "champions trophy 2025 gaddafi stadium becomes pakistan s largest cricket venue")
US should cut all aid and assistance to Pakistan, magnificent nation rich in "Ghairat".
@sunny:
US and NATO will NOT need Pak's assistance after 2014. No more blank cheques after that time. I wonder how you people are going to manage a decent livelihood...
What they need to do is ensure that the aid being given is properly used and doesn't go in hands of corrupt politicians who use that money to build palaces aboard.
@chukdechutte:
What difference does it make? Its not like the Pakistani Government has any say in the matter when the Army is around.
They don't have a choice. US cannnot survive without Pakistan's support.
U.S. Military Outpost in Pakistan: A New Bombay
Syed F. Hussaini
Setting up semi-urbanized military outposts under a UN mandate in the failed states may achieve the following:
Quick, less expensive and more effective response to terrorist threats.
Elimination of piracy in the oceans.
Securing natural resources.
Ensuring the continuation of conducive environment for global trade.
Providing a base to launch relief operations for situations like the present famine in Somalia.
Offering a glimpse to the locals in the surrounding areas to compare and realize what life can be in a society governed by the rule of law.
Offering the locals of the surrounding areas a pocket to adopt the western lifestyle without having to migrate to distant lands.
Acquiring a 50-mile by 50-mile or so parcel of land in the very beginning would provide space for future growth and expansion of the urban part of such a military outpost.
Under contract to obey the laws of the outpost, such a garrison can offer residence on exclusively tenancy basis to the local civilians in the surrounding areas.
The clause of eviction from the outpost for violation of the contract would help the civilian tenants become diligently law-abiding.
Prosecution and sentencing by the outpost under the laws of the mother country for felonies like murder, rape, kidnapping, arson and extortion would help keep criminals out.
The history of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta offers clues to founding of such semi-urbanized military outposts and to the mistakes which led to the loss of these three cities.
The rules in the urban parts of these outposts should be focused entirely on peace and business prohibiting any noise from loudspeakers, drum-beating and chest-beating and, banning all religious, cultural or, political demonstrations or processions interfering with the flow of traffic.
A strictly religion-free curriculum in the schools at the outposts would further contribute toward peace and business.
One, two or, three 50-mile by 100-mile outposts along the 1,800-mile coastline of Somalia may eventually bring peace and civilization to that country.
Similar outposts on the Arabian Sea in Baluchistan and Sindh would mitigate the issues involving the region and would provide an option to the Pakistanis desperate to get out of the war-torn, lawless country.
Saudi Arabia depends on the U.S. for its security; it can't say no to a few such semi-urbanized military outposts along the Red Sea and along the Persian Gulf offering the filthy rich Saudis a life like in London without the rain. The Saudi women would be able to drive cars.
Moammar Qaddafee would have gladly allowed a few such outposts to avoid what he is going through now.
Yemen, Burma, Congo, the land-locked Afghanistan—all these countries and many more can accommodate such outposts which can maintain a skeleton staff all the time at low cost and ramp it up when need be.
With their own seaports and airports, these outposts would have a fairly dependable supply line. Drones would help.
As the anti-civilization countries plant their suicide-bombers in the civilized world, the civilized countries would have to make a physical presence to counter the threat right where it originates.
Educating the local population around these outposts with a peek at the beauty of the civilization from close quarters would come as a bonus.
@Sunny -- it's not the USA's fault that your govt steals money that was suppose to go to the civilians -- when the USA pressed for accountability of those funds the "civilians" screamed that the USA was interfering in Pakistan's sovereignty which proves that xenophobia is more important than a full stomach, education, or a job. Further - Turkey didn't have a substantive role in the first Gulf War and the only similarity to Pakistan is that you don't get paid for doing nothing.
@arslan: Well they dont charge for infrastructure because infrastructure charge karnay kay laik hee nahi hay !!!! :p
Sunny..I like your thinking...Pak may be the only country who does not charge anyone for using its infrastructure.
it is all clear the US and Nato need Pakistan in their war against terrorism. Let us help them but not free as did Turkey in the frist gulf war in 1990. Pakistan should not ask for aid for helping them instead charge as per international standards for using its infrastructure and provision of security facilities in order to transport weapons, goods, etc to Afghanistan.