Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

US Quietly Releasing $1.6B in Pakistan Assistance.

Discussion in 'South Asia & SAARC' started by ColdPlay, Oct 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ColdPlay

    ColdPlay Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    138
    US Quietly Releasing $1.6B in Pakistan Assistance.
    WASHINGTON October 19, 2013 (AP)
    By BRADLEY KLAPPER Associated Press
    Associated Press

    The U.S. has quietly decided to release more than $1.6 billion in military and economic aid to Pakistan that was suspended when relations between the two countries disintegrated over the covert raid that killed Osama bin Laden and deadly U.S. airstrikes against Pakistani soldiers.

    Officials and congressional aides said ties have improved enough to allow the money to flow again.

    American and NATO supply routes to Afghanistan are open. Controversial U.S. drone strikes are down. The U.S. and Pakistan recently announced the restart of their "strategic dialogue" after a long pause. Pakistan's new prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, is traveling to Washington for talks this coming week with President Barack Obama.

    But in a summer dominated by foreign policy debates over the coup in Egypt and chemical weapons attacks in Syria, the U.S. hasn't promoted its revamped aid relationship with Pakistan. Neither has Pakistan.

    The silence reflects the lingering mutual suspicions between the two.

    The Pakistanis do not like being seen as dependent on their heavy-handed partners. The Americans are uncomfortable highlighting the billions provided to a government that is plagued by corruption and perceived as often duplicitous in fighting terrorism.

    Congress has cleared most of the money, and it should start moving early next year, officials and congressional aides said.

    Over three weeks in July and August, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development informed Congress that it planned to restart a wide range of assistance, mostly dedicated to helping Pakistan fight terrorism. The U.S. sees that effort sees as essential as it withdraws troops from neighboring Afghanistan next year and tries to leave a stable government behind.

    Other funds focus on a range of items, including help for Pakistani law enforcement and a multibillion-dollar dam in disputed territory.

    U.S.-Pakistani relations have weathered numerous crises in recent years. There was a months-long legal battle over a CIA contractor who killed two Pakistanis, in addition to the fallout from bin Laden's killing in the Pakistani military town of Abbottabad in May 2011. The Pakistani government was outraged that it received no advance warning of the Navy SEAL raid on bin Laden's compound.

    Adding to the mistrust, the U.S. mistakenly killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers in November 2011. Islamabad responded by shutting land supply routes for troops in Afghanistan until it received a U.S. apology seven months later.

    The State Department told Congress that the U.S. hadn't conducted any significant military financing for Pakistan since the "challenging and rapidly changing period of U.S.-Pakistan relations" in 2011 and 2012. The department stressed the importance now of enhancing Pakistan's anti-terrorism capabilities through better communications, night vision capabilities, maritime security and precision striking with F16 fighter jets.

    The department told Congress on July 25 that it would spend $295 million to help Pakistan's military. Twelve days later it announced $386 million more. A pair of notifications arriving on Aug. 13 and worth $705 million centered on helping Pakistani troops and air forces operating in the militant hotbeds of western Pakistan, and other counterinsurgency efforts.

    The administration had until the end of September to provide Congress with "reprogramming" plans at the risk of forfeiting some of the money, which spans federal budgets from 2009-2013.

    State Department officials said the renewal of aid wasn't determined by any single event. But they noted a confluence of signs of greater cooperation, from Pakistan's improved commitment to stamping out explosives manufacturing to its recent counterterror offensive in areas bordering Afghanistan that have served as a primary sanctuary for the Taliban.

    The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk publicly about the aid relationship ahead of Sharif's visit. They said the money would start reaching Pakistan in 2014 but take several years to disburse fully.

    In its notifications to Congress, the department described fighting terrorism as a mutual concern but said little about the will of Pakistan's government, army and intelligence services to crack down on militant groups that often have operated with impunity in Pakistan while wreaking havoc on U.S. and international forces across the border in Afghanistan.

    Top American officials have regularly questioned Pakistan's commitment to counterterrorism.

    In 2011, Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described the militant Haqqani network as a "veritable arm" of Pakistani intelligence. Lawmakers and administration officials have cited Pakistani support for the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba and other militant groups.

    In September, the administration sent officials from multiple agencies for closed-doors briefings with the House and Senate foreign relations committees, officials and congressional aides said.

    The House Foreign Affairs Committee has cleared all of the notifications. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is reviewing a $280 million chunk of military financing, Senate aides said. Aides spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk publicly on the matter.

    "The committee held up the projects to get more information and express concerns," said the office of Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., the House panel's chairman. "Though they went forward, the committee continues its close oversight."

    While Washington has publicly challenged Islamabad to step up its fight against militant groups, Pakistan's biggest complaint has been the huge surge in drone strikes on terrorist targets, which Pakistanis see as violations of their sovereignty. The number of attacks has dropped dramatically this year.

    The countries say they're now moving past the flaps and mishaps that soured their partnership in recent years. During an August trip to Pakistan, Secretary of State John Kerry announced the restart of a high-level "strategic dialogue" with Pakistan on fighting terrorism, controlling borders and fostering investment.

    Among the economic aid programs included in the U.S. package, support for the Diamer-Basha dam near Pakistan's unresolved border with India has the potential for controversy and tremendous benefit.

    Pakistan's government has been unable to secure money for the project from the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank is waiting to hear from the United States and India before providing financing to help construction. The dam faces massive funding shortfalls.

    In its July 24 notification to Congress, USAID said the project could cost up to $15 billion and take a decade to complete. The agency promised only to provide "financial and technical assistance" for studies, including on environmental and social aspects, while expressing hope the dam could be transformative for a country with chronic power shortages. State Department officials put the bill for the studies at $20 million.

    If the dam were ultimately built, USAID wrote, it could provide electricity for 60 million people and 1 million acres of crop land, and provide a ready supply of water for millions more. It noted that Pakistani officials have sought American support at the "highest levels."

    Despite amounting to just a small portion of the overall U.S. aid package, congressional aides said Pakistan's government has lobbied particularly hard for the dam money to be unlocked.

    Pakistan's embassy in Washington refused to comment on the aid or say if Sharif would bring up any specific programs in talks at the White House.

    US Quietly Releasing $1.6B in Pakistan Assistance - ABC News
     
  2. The Drdo Guy

    The Drdo Guy Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    469
    Only till 2014,after that pakistan military forces will be left to starve for technologies as the fundings will die out.....Bhikh maang k jung nahi ladi jati....
     
    2 people like this.
  3. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    lol. too much of this ill informed crap that I keep hearing.
    You know why we are high on aid?

    We are fighting someone else's war. We've acted as a ally since day one. And we've paid a hefty hefty price beyond your wildest imagination.

    The losses to the Pakistani economy are all the way up to $100 billion.
    Besides, 5 years of constant war is not cheap, it costs tons of tax payers money. The aid is peanuts in comparison.

    And as for post 2014, we will still get aid, less perhaps, but by then, much of the fighting will seize or greatly shift in our favour,peace and stability will be coming back. As soon as that happens, the aid wont be necessary at all.
     
  4. Himanshu Pandey

    Himanshu Pandey Don't get mad, get even. STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    10,210
    Likes Received:
    4,220
    Country Flag:
    India
    100 billion $... really.. you should not belive in this BS.. and if you do.. please enlighten us how?

    I hope its a economic and scientific data not some random idea came into mind of some media fixture.
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    The $100 billion figure at first sounds like complete bull.

    But upon analysing what it really means, one can see how it's possible and how even that 100 billion figure may be a little conservative.

    Ever heard of the term 'opportunity cost'? Well, for war ravaged nations, such as ours, there's something called, 'the opportunity cost of peace'. You combine all the money spent, the lives lost, the damage taken and all the LACK of potential growth and lack of economic activity added up.

    I remember discussing this a while back. So lets tally up the possible costs:

    • Military operations acquisitions, a few hundred million dollars for WoT.
    • Troop deployment year on year for about 6 years that costs billions.
    • FATA reconstruction programmes cost 2 billion dollars.
    • Creation/reparation of about 400km of roads.
    • A few million per year on compensating the victims of terror.
    • Now take Malakand and Swat operation of 2009, that operation alone cost billions of dollars, the op itself cost in millions, the damage done by the taliban rule and the large scale ground offensive meant that billions of dollars of damage had been done, most of which is yet to be repaired. And since 2008/2009 we've had regular operations in FATA and the rest of KPK.
    • Also, investment nosedived since our dedication to this war, from 22.5% in FY2006 to 13.4% in FY2010.
    • And you know that investment triggers a knock on effect of growth and economic activity. Such a drastic decrease is billions of dollars lost year on year on year. That is billions of dollars we lose today and possibly tens of billions we lose in the longer perspective.

    Then also, terrorism has decayed economic growth considerably that could easily be $4-5 billion we loose per year in potential growth. Loss of economic activity. According to my own estimates, if we say that terrorism and a state of war has caused damages of 2% to the economy since 2007 (not even saying 2004), the loss comes to about $30 billion dollars worth of potential growth.

    And there are hundreds of factors I haven't considered.
    I am tempted to think the losses have been even more and that the government estimates stated by the last government are somewhat conservative.
     
  6. The Drdo Guy

    The Drdo Guy Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    469
    No one in this sane world will fight someone else's war.your state have no money to fund a transmission line and you have to get loans from IMF and you are claiming that you have fought someone else's war.Isn't the war on terror is your own war.The whole world fighting this war on terror but no one seeks aid from US.your country and US has some common vested intrest and that's why they are still funding you.I'm not a novice who can believe your so called $100 billion claim.Plz go and check for the GDP of pak form the time you have became an ally and tell me that were your state can spent so much of billion dollars on SOMEONE ELES'S WAR.EVEN THE RICHEST OF THE RICHEST WILL NOT CLAIM.....
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    I forgot the biggest point. When 60,000 people up and die. it has a HUGE effect. One that we can put a monetary value on, one that we can't.

    First of all it's the deaths of so many countless souls.

    The monetary value we can judge if we consider the GDP per capita in Pakistan. If we say it's 1300 USD, 1300*60,000. For however many years they would generated economic activity and that figure of 1300 would have grown with the nominal growth. Then there are the knock on effects. The damages to consumer, business and investor confidence, capital flight, investment loss, undervalued damage to infrastructure.

    This last point is probably the biggest, worth tens of billions and grows every other year.
     
  8. layman

    layman Aurignacian STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,024
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Country Flag:
    United States
    I would like to reiterate were GoP in control of these areas initially to claim for the losses... These areas were lawless places where militancy was considered as career....
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    Oh just thought of something else too.

    The flood of Afghan refugees costs lots too, UN didn't cover much of those costs.
    The war also revived the drug trade too. All things which damaged Pakistan economically.

    You need to read the above posts of mine, they'll explain to you how I can make such an outlandish claim.

    And as for this being our war. Oh not it isn't. Before the US got here, there was no TTP, no extremist attacks on Pakistan. Since then we've lost 60,000 lives.

    And the US could have avoided this war all together, all they had to do was arrest the al Qaeda operatives and within 2-3 weeks it would have been over.
     
  10. layman

    layman Aurignacian STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,024
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Country Flag:
    United States
    And Pakistan made this decision to accept to fight this WoT. Actually they had no options other than accepting as they were the only political support for Talibans. Moreover this entering of WoT was only to save their skins as US wit them or without them are going to hammer Talibans. So Pak made a strategic decision to be with the US rather than against them. So there is no point in cribbing now as there wasn't any options available that time around.
     
    3 people like this.
  11. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    So much for a decision. To quote Mushy, deputy secretary of state back in 2004, threatened to 'bomb Pakistan back to the stone age.' . If it did not co-operate.
     
  12. Himanshu Pandey

    Himanshu Pandey Don't get mad, get even. STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Messages:
    10,210
    Likes Received:
    4,220
    Country Flag:
    India
    the reconstruction of roads and infra will not com into it as most was destroyed by lack of clear policy rather then WoT... and then there development has been done by foreign assistance which is near to tens of billion $.. if your government has not chosen to take toll tax on all vehicles passing and not considered and checked the quality of road.. its not fault of NATO. and then it had been few billions $ invested in Infra.

    I had heard of opportunity cost and it is the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen by definition given in The New Oxford American Dictionary.. so this cost can't be considered as it always happen when you choose one option and leave others.. it is used in choosing the option or optimal option.. once chosen its not there to be considered.

    most of people who died are died for ethnic reasons... shias got murdered not because you are part of WoT but because you did nothing against LaJ.. your army, FC and police done nothing in karachi where several thousand are dead because of sectarian war.. and you did nothing to stop arming people... its just the consequences.

    in 12 years.. you had not developed a single major port apart from karachi.. now its your policy fault nobody else is responsible, not established any big power plant or developed industrial area... rather then this... you let people live in dark... did nothing to stop robberies and killing in all over pakistan.. now don't put all of them on this WoT... it would look like if a person died because of personal fued.. he is counted as a number.. if a house is destroyed by mafia.. its counted in it.

    WoT is limited to your KPK and it was never a developed area..

    so please put it more clear.. how this 100 billion has been estimated... I hope if its a government figure there should be documentation involved and cost will be putted for every parameter.. let us know of them or at least the once you know.
    it was your government's policy to let people have automatic rifles, rocket launchers and all other ammunition and they never tried to stop this.. now if you live in a house made of gun powder.. you can't blame others when it goes into boom.

    the pak economy was not good before wa.. in 90s it was not thriving and its your joining the WoT which provided you with a lot of export and other concessions and investment supported by NATO nations which made you grow high in mushy period.

    those terrorist gone on war against you had been created by you when you allowed radical education in your system.. so it was your own crop.. which you are cutting right now.. most of those suside bombers and terrorist has been trained in pakistan and had gone against you because you had joined a war against terrorism when you are the mentor of it.

    all other nation near to war zone has prospered because they used it economically but you had not because you used it to gain foot hold in afghanistan in more firm way and wanted to build your economy and world acceptance by this war.. its your failure because you chosen wrong objectives.

    hundred thousand people had died in your nation because of this war and that why you claim to be first line state in this war.. but had you done anything seriously to stop this.. and don't tell me about military operations we both know military operations are not capable of it... had you banned illegal arms in your nation, had you created a awareness in your people regarding secularism and against terrorism, had your tried to change the way children are taught in schools, had you tried to remove the radical part of army and other organizations...

    you did nothing, your leaders, people and nations wept against these death but next moment they start justifying the terrorist.. there are still people who support TTP and they are in main stream, your nation did nothing to clear it from all the terrorist, it hidden them in various places.. OBL is prime example.. if you play from both side... you are going to pay for both sides.
     
    7 people like this.
  13. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    You haven't really addressed my main points. You've gone off into a tangent.

    It's like I said, 'this is how much we lost due to the WoT'.

    And you saying, 'well, you weren't doing that good anyway'.

    Which is true, but it wont negate the fact that we did indeed lose.
    The money we got in return was payments a great deal of it. The Americans know it too.
    Here's what I have for you folks to find out: Of the total aid announced for Pakistan, only half is ever freed up by Congress, And of that almost half of it is given to the US consultancy firms as a fee, only about a quarter of the aid announced ever made it here, and then it was halfed again, one for security and the other half for civilian purposes.

    And as for policy, what are you talking about? Policy to stop infrastructure being destroyed? What policy? Please do enlighten me as to how anyone could have stopped this.

    And as for infrastructure, according to an article I read only last year in the year 2010-2011 alone, the damage to physical infrastructure, including civil and military was something like $1.78 billion and those are government statistics which undervalue the infrastructure.

    No, that's not how it works. I'm afraid a measly dictionary definition isn't enough to understand a complex economic concept.
    Physical cost and opportunity cost are different things, it just means the next best or the best alternative foregone, it doesn't need to be about choice.

    Even if you take the fancy concept out of it, in simple Layman's terms, had it not have been for the war much of the damages could have been avoided.

    For that you should read up reports like the opportunity cost of war/peace on actual case studies, like Afghanistan and Iraq.
    That will explain it better to you.

    That's absolutely false.

    Most of them died in the war with the TTP. The security, policemen, FC, army. Then the civilians who were dying by the hundreds weekly due to bombings at one point in time. Perhaps you not being so in touch with Pakistan's state of affairs then. But you would see the reasons and the toll was blindingly obvious. And that assumption you've made is way off.

    What on earth does this have to do with my post?

    Yes, the country was mismanaged. But thanks to the WoT it is well and truly SCREWED!
    Don't mix the two and don't use one as an excuse for the other.

    Where oh where did I even mention it?

    If you can point it out, I will concede.

    But you are making this up yourself HP. I didn't even mention it.

    Again that is wrong on so many levels.

    WoT was not by any means 'limited' to Pukhtunkhwa. We had bombs going off in Karachi, Lahore. The most Southern and the most Eastern parts of the country. Taliban entered Chilas not long ago and there conducted attacks.

    Also again, if you'd been reading Pakistani news, you'd know of the taliban infestation in Karachi.

    Also, last of all, you CANNOT, shrug KPK off as an insignificant province, and under developed and all that...
    10% of our GDP is from KPK. But the important point I want you to note is that what you just said is absolutely false.

    Taliban controlled land all the way up till Swat, and had a reach as long as the LoC.

    Well, with all due respect HP, the above you replied with, doesn't disprove any of the things I've said.
    In fact, you've made lots of false assumptions.

    But if you want me to compile data, I can give you estimates from the government, NGOs and economists.

    Oh yes we can. Those were always a problem sure. But before the war, there was no fight with the PA.
    Not even in Balochistan. Any army man could stroll into FATA, greet the tribal elders and they'd exchange gifts. Now it's taliban ravaged.

    And if you;d like, I'll paint you a picture as to who's fault it is that we have a taliban infestation.

    That's true. But even under those sanctions we grew at a slow 4-5% which is a hell of a lot better than what we experienced recently 0.5%-3%, that too ONLY possible with IMF loans, World bank and US AID.

    Which has created a new debt bombshell for future generations.

    We were a hundred times better before being dragged into this go nowhere war.

    This is a very very false view. And I didn't expect this from you HP.
    How long have you known me? You must have seen me schooling hundreds of member about this very topic.

    The TTP were not created by anyone in Pakistan, nor were the taliban.
    They were born of war and Kandahar student movement. CIA projects too, which I have complete details about.

    Again if you want to discuss this with me in great length. Call me out to this thread and we will discuss in great detail:

    http://www.indiandefence.com/forums/pakistan/10691-pakistans-war-terror.html
    which you are cutting right now.. most of those suside bombers and terrorist has been trained in pakistan and had gone against you because you had joined a war against terrorism when you are the mentor of it.

    Again where are you coming up with this?

    Come on man, you should realise that Pakistan's strategic depth game is a load of BS.
    Pakistan has supported the US and Karzai through thick and thin without once supporting the taliban or al qaeda.

    foothold??? Really? The Northern alliance today holds Kabul. If we wanted a foothold, by God it would have happened by now.
    Instead we committed to this war, got a flood of their refugees, a war spilt into our own lands.

    Again, you are coming up with some very false points.
    Very false.

    Now that is a load of crap.

    We've been at a constant state of war since 2008. When we commenced a full scale offensive in Swat and Malakand.
    80-90% of the land that talibs had in 2008, WE took back.

    And we spilt blood for it. Please don't take the hard work lightly.

    Would be a nice step but wouldn't make a difference.
    The terrorists use illegal gun markets in Afghanistan and Pukhtunkhwa and tribal arms cache. Not legal licensed markets.

    I disagree. I am pro secular. But Pakistan is not ready for it yet. Leaning towards secularism would caused an even greater onslaught of the brainwashed buffoons.

    Yes it was Zia's fault and all, but you are going off into a tangent here.

    Oh that part of the ISI and army had gone by the 90's, once Zia left, things started to return to normalcy within the fabric of the army and hence the ISI too.

    Again that's a load of crap. It may seem so to an outsider. But dealing this war is a tight rope. You swing too much to either side and you are eternally crewed.

    Again if you want me to explain it to you either in simple form or in great length come to the WoT thread.

    And as for military ops, those are the only choice and the PA has been doing a fine job and the right thing to curb extremism.
    Terrorism will not be cured no matter what you do here in Pakistan. The end game lies in Afghanistan and the foreign force has long kept Afghanistan unstable in a state of disequilibrium. That is why PA has been eating up ground and then spreading flowers wherever it goes. Rehab schemes, reconstructions, schools and security.

    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    All in all, with regards to my post that you replied too, you went way off. You started talking valid point some of them, but they were missing the point I was trying to make completely.

    And in fact, a whole great chunk of those points you made are of the typical (if you don't mind me saying) Indian perspective.
    Which I've dealt with countless numbers of time at this forum.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2013
  14. omya

    omya Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    7,557
    Likes Received:
    3,828
    Country Flag:
    India

    [MENTION=7118]Himanshu Pandey[/MENTION] used a cr** word

    kirayeke sipahi

    financing terrorists since day 1... and ya that is the price you pay if you keep on funding terrorism....

    The losses to the Pakistani economy are all the way up to $100 billion.
    Besides, 5 years of constant war is not cheap, it costs tons of tax payers money. The aid is peanuts in comparison.

    dreaming is a good thing...
     
    1 person likes this.
  15. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    5,744
    Likes Received:
    2,114
    Am I supposed to reply to this somehow?

    If you disagree with anything I've said, please challenge me, one liners wont do, they leave me with too wide of a scope to reply.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page