Pakistan

US finalising aid package for Pakistan: report

A CNN report claims the Obama administration is finalising a $2b aid package for Pakistan to help it fight militancy.

Express October 19, 2010

The US media claims that the Obama administration is putting the final touches on a security assistance package totalling about $2 billion over five years for Pakistan.

Senior US officials told the CNN that the amount will help Pakistan fight militants on its border with Afghanistan.

The aid is expected to be announced later this week when Pakistani officials hold high-level talks in Washington.

The package aims to address Pakistan's insistence that it does not have the capability to go after terrorists and needs more support from the United States, said the report. The aid is expected to help Pakistan purchase helicopters, weapons systems and equipment to intercept communications.

The package falls under the United States' Foreign Military Financing programme. It is on top of the Kerry Lugar Berman aid package for Pakistan.

The Express Tribune recently reported that the US agreed to disburse $550 million to Pakistan that had been held up since 2009. The amount is part of the Coalition Support Fund for Pakistan’s fight against terrorism.

According to sources, the US has to pay Pakistan a total of as many as $2.45 billion to cover the expenses on the war against terrorism. An amount of $1.9 billion is still left over from the money promised for 2010.

Pakistan last year sent 30,000 troops into South Waziristan to destroy Taliban strongholds in the region and is now facing demands from Washington to launch an operation in neighbouring North Waziristan. However, the Pakistan Army says it is “overstretched” and will only send troops when it deems possible.

COMMENTS (5)

Zahid Hussain | 14 years ago | Reply @ Mr. Nikos Retsos thanks for endorsing precisely what I had been trying to convey to U. S. government officials and all those who matter in Pakistan since mid of this decade through comments on articles in Washington Post, New York Time, The Economist and other international media platforms. Unfortunately, the bi-lateral and tri-lateral strategic dialogues in this case 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. THE BOTTOMLINE: Immediate focus on a strategic dialogue between all the players directly or indirectly involved in the conflict on a five point agenda: 1: Consensus on a set of unanimous political, social, economic, military and diplomatic priorities 2: Restructuring of military alliance with the replacement of ISAF with a joint military peace mission consisting of GCC countries and countries around Afghanistan. 3: 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. 4: 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 5: Transparent and above board peace and progress process

Nikos Retsos | 14 years ago | Reply This U.S.-Pakistan strategic dialogue is another foolish and futile Barack Obama effort to close the American failure in Afghanistan without admitting defeat - like the U.S. did in Vietnam. With the 2012 presidential re-election campaign expected to start early, Barack Obama has slipped in the polls from 68% upon his election, to 44% now. Worse yet, only 38% of Americans think he is handling the economy well. Obama, therefore, see a dark cloud on his re-election horizon, and the U.S. -Pakistani talks are just a last ditch effort to prop-up himself, or become history after one term as president. And that possibility has been growing steadily, as the coalition of young voters and independents who propelled Obama to the presidency is in tatters now. What is the possibility of success in the U.S. - Pakistani strategic talks? ZERO!!! George Bush foolishly thought that the U.S. can overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan, and then bribe the Pakistani government with $ billions of U.S. aid to support a puppet U.S. despotic regime in Kabul, similar to pro-U.S. despotic regimes in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc. But the Pashtun Taliban proved to be a tough "hornet's nest" for the U.S. to defeat. And after 10 years of war, Obama has come to realize that the U.S. superpower image is shredded in Afghanistan, and that would likely shred his chances of re-election in 2012 - unless Pakistan declare open war on Taliban, and use its army to destroy the Taliban, and save the U.S. from the "embarrassment of defeat." It is a replay of the U.S. failure in Vietnam, where the U.S. continued the war for 5 years while it was searching for a way avoid the "embarrassment of defeat" - as it does now in Afghanistan. (U.S., PBS Broadcast Documentary, October 5, 2010) Would Pakistan start an open war with Taliban, and wipe out 42% of Afghans -the Pashtun- who comprise the Taliban insurgency, to help the U.S. "save face" by claiming victory in Afghanistan? Of course not. The Pakistanis are preoccupied with a possible war with India -in the East, and their priority is to keep their back in Afghanistan in friendly hands. And that means a Pakistani controlled regime in Kabul, not a U.S. puppet regime that can sell them out on orders from Washington. After all, the U.S, and Pakistan are hostile allies, but they cooperate by necessity, even though their long term goals are irreconcilable! Pakistani national security, therefore is not for sale, not for $ 7.5 billion (the total U.S. aid), but for any price! Worse yet, for the desperate U.S. efforts to find a "face-saving" way out of Afghanistan, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the Northern Afghan provinces have come under the Taliban control lately, with the support of Tajiks and other ethnic groups who have become disillusioned with the corrupt Karzai regime in Kabul. (Wall Street Journal, October 19, 2010) Can the U.S. turn 10 years of war failure in Afghanistan around? No way. The writing is on the wall for the U.S. in Afghanistan. The U.S. talks with Pakistan now is a repeat of of a similar U.S. effort at the end of the the Vietnam war too. Richard Nixon sent his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, to China's to fashion a "face-saving" way out of Vietnam with China's help. Kissinger received a cold reception from Chinese premier Chu En Lai who told him straight in the face: "You [the U.S.] don't belong there. Get out!" on quote. Too bad, Obama doesn't know history, and now Vietnam's war history seems to repeat itself in Afghanistan. Nikos Retsos, retired professor

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

Zahid Hussain | 14 years ago | Reply This is a very important issue. Why our electronic media does not invite the Ambassadors from European Union countries and USA in Pakistan seeking their comments on the possibility of initiating a diplomatic effort for the signing of a multi-lateral treaty for the disclosure of foreign accounts details of illegal money deposited by Pakistanis in the banks of their respective countries. It must be catagorically stated in the treaty that any account holder, if found guilty of laundering money through both legal and illegal ways, will have to surrender that money first for the settlement of Pakistan's foreign debt and then for the transfer of remaining amount to State Bank of Pakistan. Will our crusading media owners and their favorite reporters-cum-analysts-cum-columnists-cum-anchors create a media hype on this subject?

ADE | 14 years ago | Reply Say NO to aid!

khalid.aziz | 14 years ago | Reply Hurray-more bucks for khakis, anything coming in for "bloody civilians"?

Replying to X