After American Aid Freeze….now what?

A Pakpotpourri Exclusive

By

Hamid Waheed

What will happen now with US Congress passing of bill to freeze military aid to Pakistan? This is THE Question asked by many Pakistanis in this difficult times of strained Pak – US relations when US house of representative passed a legislation to freeze 700 million dollar aid to Pakistan. A Common Pakistani perception is that Pakistan has suffered enormous losses financially, economically, socially and psychologically and the compensation being paid by the US for this colossal damage amounts to pea nuts. The American public, on the other hand, feels that Pakistani policy makers and officials continue to benefit from the aid and assistance through their tax money  and at the same time use it as punching bag to pursue their own political agenda and accuse it of double game in fight against terrorists and Afghan exit Strategy. Misperceptions that prevail on both sides need a surgery to find facts. Today lets take  a ‘transparent look’ that explains and reveals the U.S.-Pakistan relationship with respect to aid to Pak and its utilization.

The total amounts budgeted by the US $20.7 billion in US funding allocated to Pakistan from 2002 to 2010,had $14.2 billion for the Pakistani military. Security-related funding, including CSF (2002-2010).This includes the operational cost of the 140,000 Pakistani troops deployed along the 2,560-kilometer border. However the paper  transactions show that amounts actually given to Pakistan, in economic assistance came to $6.5 billion which is  less than a third of the total. Almost two-thirds of the amount goes into security-related heads, while the social sector and economic infrastructure receive the remaining one-third. Within social sector US AID and ‘private contractors’ spent more than 70 percent of the funds allocated for socio-economic development on their own support infrastructure. Half of the money never leaves US accounts. It’s the same for Iraq and Afghanistan. Now coming  to spending of  $488.537 million being provided under the Kerry-Lugar-Burmen Law (KLL), it was  provided for two modes of assistance: one, budget money worth $1,025.335 million for the year 2010-11 and, two, “off the budget” $488.537 million.

Looking at “off the budget” assistance of $488 million, America planed to spend $170 million for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement, $106.387 million for Office of Transition and $60 million for humanitarian assistance. The remaining over $240 million will be spent through international and local NGOs. Pakistani authorities do not know details of this spending.  The US Government Accountability Office reports that only 12 percent of the $1.5 billion in economic assistance to Pakistan authorized for 2010 was actually disbursed that year. Independent calculations by the Center for Global Development suggest that $2.2 billion of civilian aid budgeted for Pakistan is currently undisbursed, meaning that total economic assistance actually received from the US over the past nine years is in the approximity of $4.3 billion, or $480 million per year. . When this is  compared with remittances of, Pakistanis abroad they send more than $11 billion to their families in Pakistan annually, over twenty times the flow of US economic aid. 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 the amount allotted on papers was 20 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. Out of the amount received a huge amount is under the Coalition Support Fund which is simply reimbursement of the expenditures incurred on logistical support and supplies to NATO and US forces and maintenance of own troops fighting WOT.

The Congress authorised a substantial increase 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 in2006-07) 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). 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 channeled for budgetary support. These facts do not, by any scale, reflect that the Pakistani economy will collapse if the US decides to withdraw its aid package.

However this is not the only issue, the Anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, caused by blowing hot and cold by the super power, is strongly attached  with public frustrations over the failures of the Pakistani government, which is losing credibility among its own people and political allies. With widespread tax evasion, Pakistan has one of the lowest tax revenues in the world, resulting in a lack of funding for development , infrastructure and basics hitting the public.

The solution lies in understanding of ground realities by both partners and educating and mobilizing their public opinion based on facts. The Pakistani government needs to work out strategy and make a policy to reform the state institutions, improve health, education and other services, and invest in its people to ensure stability looking into the future. The United States can help by expediting and expanding development and economic growth initiatives from the international community for Pakistan . American must beware of the group trying to distance the collation partners as we enter into exit phase of Afghanistan. If the partnership collapses completely, the  effects will certainly be felt by both. In life of Nations TIME is of importance and the question remains can we afford loosing time by adopting a longer route or find a reasonable path  through mutual respect. for each other’s National interests?

NOTE: The writer is a political analyst based in Islamabad.

About these ads
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • S U Turkman  On December 17, 2011 at 5:53 am

    So, the Writer claims, Charity of Aid to Pakistan never leaves US Account.

    May we ask, …
    .
    * … in which Bank this US Account is that the Writer has checked, Charities of USA and other countries never left for Pak Account?
    * … how the hell from just $ 40 million in 2001, Pak Foreign Exchange Reserves had gone sky high record breaking level of $ 17 billion then? … Had Allah started making Foreign Exchange fall at the Roof of State Bank of Pakistan or our filthy rich brotherly Taliban had given that money to SBP if not USA?
    * … what the hell Pak Budget has to do with F.E. Reserves, Foreign Money Aid and Loans? Which country of the world includes Foreign Aid and Loans in Budget and how? Doesn’t every country have to make Budget in her own currency?
    .
    Americans know, Pakistanis hate them, want to destroy USA, have been killing them as Taliban, have stolen 10,800 of their Shipping Containers, are blowing up Fuel Tankers and Supplies, have been sheltering all the Al Qaeda, Taliban and Osama and want them out of Pakistan and Afghanistan so, they can take over Afghanistan.
    USA is too humane to punish Pakis for this but Allah is watching. He would send another calamity on already damned Pakis or may cause even a bigger catastrophe than the world has so far seen.
    God takes too long to act but He really exist so, don’t worry, He is just.

  • TMH  On December 17, 2011 at 6:04 am

    The most honorable way is to thank America, for all the help provided in
    the past and excuse our selves from all future US aid programs.
    Tighten the national belt, i mean start from top, all perks must be trimmed.
    Once this is done, nation will also comply without any protest.

    TMH

    • S U Turkman  On December 17, 2011 at 6:41 am

      Please don’t make me laugh. Tightening Belt does not mean, you can pay back $ 60 billion Debt by earning more Foreign Exchange than imports suddenly after 64 years of having a habit of never earning it.
      .
      Pak Imports: : $ 41 billion
      .
      Petroleum : 1/3rd of imports.
      Machinery : 18%
      Chemicals : 15% of Imports
      Food (including Cooking Oil) : 11% of Imports

      Only 20% of Products are Consumer Products including Automobiles and Motor Cycles. 3% is Remittances out of Pakistan and Pakistan’s Expenses abroad.
      .
      Exports and Remittances : $ 23 billion
      .
      Yearly Need of Charity of Aid and Loan 2011 : $ 18 billion or $ 1.5 billion a month.
      .
      So tightening Belt means, no Consumer Product Import ($ 8 bln). No Chemical Import ($ 7 bln) and $ 3 bin cut in Machinery Import by Pak Army. All Chemical Factories will have to close down. No more C 4 manufacturing by Pak Army for Taliban IEDs and IUDs. How can JehaaD continue in Afghanistan?
      How can people live without new Cars, Motor Cycles, TVs, Refrigerators, A/Cs, Computers, Electric Generators, Mobile Phones, I Pads, etc, etc.
      .
      Imbeciles, who’s Belts are so lose that their Pants have fallen down and now even Trains are not late by hours but by days, are going to change and learn Belt Tightening Disciplines?
      If you are so sure, go tell Keyani to send US Ambassador packing back home and then watch what happens an year later. You would be buying one Dollar for 1 lac Rupee and tens of millions of poor Pakis would be starving to death begging for Humanitarian (Food) Aid from the world. .

      • Laila  On December 17, 2011 at 6:53 am

        We all know you Oye Hindu.Paid RAW sitting waiting for a posting to drum out your BS.
        Go bum off LOSER!

  • Shahbaz  On December 17, 2011 at 6:46 am

    TMH Sb
    If she had she would be ???????

    Muhammad Shahbaz Thuthaal

  • Zubair  On December 17, 2011 at 6:51 am

    This is the right time to say “thank U” to he US and refuse to accept any more aid which in any case is NOT aid. If you don’t learn to stand on your own feet, you ever will. The only bad effect will be on the purses of the rulers—-People have learnt to live without goodies since long. It could be an honorable slap on the US. Now that the US rep is in Dubai, the Govt should take this decision before AAZ starts a camp office in Dubai and starts dishing out orders from there.
    Zubair

  • Tariq Ikram  On December 17, 2011 at 7:00 am

    Agree 100pc be self sustaining with manageable level of debt which is well invested. What do we do short term when next tranches of debt repayment becomes due? Where do get the FE? Any views? TI
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

  • Majyd Aziz  On December 17, 2011 at 7:01 am

    The Aid will continue once proper “paperwork” is favorable

    Majyd Aziz
    *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

    • S U Turkman  On December 31, 2011 at 11:43 pm

      What Paperwork?

  • S U Turkman  On December 17, 2011 at 7:04 am

    Sir,
    If no Charity of Aid is received and IMF stopped granting loans all the F.E. Reserves could be gone in just one year. After that no Bank in the world would be accepting Letters of Credit opened in a Pak Bank so no imports would land in Pakistan and Remittances would not show up on Credit side of IMF Account of Pakistan because they would be used to pay the Loans that Pakistan owes.
    This would mean the $ 4 billion worth of less Food in Pak Markets raising price of Cooking Oil, Tea, Wheat Flour, Food-grains etc. As shortages start, more Food would be smuggled out to earn better money than worthless Pak Rupee fallen in Foreign Exchange Market like a rock.
    Afghanistan has faced this and one dollar had reached Exchange Rate of 2 lac Afghanis.. Pak Rupee has never crashed before but what the heck, why not try that also “Allah BHala karai gaa” as soon as we start praying, right?.

    The half of Pak F.E. Earnings are from Remittances. Pakistan is not big in exporting anything.

  • Kaleem Saadat  On December 17, 2011 at 11:12 am

    On balance, I think we would be better off without both, the war on terror and the American reimbursements of cost of our military anti-terror operations. The WoT has destroyed our communication infrastructure, societal cohesion, economy, policy focus and prioritization etc. The government has destroyed all our public sector enterprises but has done one job very well i.e. obstruction of justice.
    They have been concerned with their own survival and not that of the country and its people. Sad!

    • S U Turkman  On December 17, 2011 at 4:59 pm

      Yes Mr. Saadat,
      We would be better off without any Charity of Aid and Loans because no body knows Math. The only way to learn that we do not know Math and are crazy is, to do whatever stupidity we believe in and let tens of millions of our citizens starved to death. But even then we don’t have to learn anything just like we did not learn anything from 1971 because we can blame all that bankruptcy and starvation on some International Conspiracy like usual. After that we can go back begging to survive but keep blackmailing and backstabbing as usual.
      Allaho Akbar …!

  • Admiral Sirohey  On December 17, 2011 at 11:14 am

    Dear Ms Yasmeen Ali

    Reference my last message. Alhamdulillah my plea and prayer has been responded through Mr Hamid Waheed.

    My thanks to him.

    IAS

  • Khan Zia  On December 18, 2011 at 3:24 am

    There appears to be a serious misunderstanding about the reality and need for US economic assistance to Pakistan. A careful analysis will indicate that much of it flows right back to the US in the form of tied purchases, payments to consultants, expensive and often unnecessary feasibility studies, etc. There is little to show for it in Pakistan.

    What we have received over the past ten year has to be balanced against what Pakistan has lost as a result of the so called ‘war against terror’, which in effect amounts to little more than facilitating the US occupation of Afghanistan. Pakistan’s sacrifice in this diabolic misadventure by far exceeds anything that the US could possibly compensate for. The sooner we end this disastrous involvement the better — politically as well as economically.

    About the US ‘aid’ itself, Dr. Isharat Husain, ex-Vice President of the World Bank and Governor of the State Bank had this to say in the following piece :
    ” the pundits in the US who believe that they can use the leverage of US official aid to paralyze Pakistan’s economy are sadly mistaken as they have an exaggerated sense of the importance of these official flows. Any attempt to impose conditions that impinge upon the sovereignty of Pakistan or conflict with our own national interests can be resisted without creating a serious dislocation to our macro economic stability or growth prospects.”

    How critical is US assistance?

    By Dr Ishrat Husain, The Dawn, 16th April 2008

    A SPATE of editorials, articles, columns and reports emanating from the United States in the last few months have argued that the US assistance to Pakistan should be made conditional upon the progress in the achievement of US’s strategic goals in the region. These assertions echoed in the national media and the popular discourse in the country. This article tests the validity of these assertions with the help of empirical evidence and attempts to disentangle the myths from the reality.

    The US economic and military assistance to Pakistan since September 11, 2001 has come in four main forms (a) debt relief (b) military assistance (c) economic assistance (d) emergency relief assistance. In addition, the US . has been reimbursing in dollars the expenditures incurred by Pakistan in supplying logistics services to US troops in Afghanistan.

    Although normally this reimbursement should not be considered part of any aid package, it has been so included in this analysis for the sake of comprehensiveness. If this broader definition of US assistance is accepted, then the next step is to calculate the quantum of this assistance.

    In FY 2002, the US provided debt relief of $600 million and in FY 2003 used Economic Support Fund of $186 million to retire bilateral US debt of $1 billion. Between FY 2004-2007, the US has provided budgetary support of $800 million under Economic Support Fund. In addition it also funded (a) development assistance (b) Child Survival and Health Programme and (c) PL 480 Title II in the amount of $530 million. The US is committed to further $600 million in FY 08 and FY 09 under economic assistance.

    Under Earthquake relief and reconstruction the US has provided $105 million and has committed to allocate an additional amount of $200 million for reconstruction in the AJK and NWFP.

    The military assistance that has been received so far is approximately $900 million with further commitment of$600 million in the coming two years. Finally, the US has been reimbursing Pakistan at $80 million a month for the logistic services provided to the US troops in Afghanistan since 2002. This amount aggregates to $4.8 billion in all and is shown under the services account in the current account balance. This amount is in actual fact, payment for expenditures that Pakistan has been incurring out of its own resources in rupees and is not included in any standard definition of “aid”. But we have included the reimbursements as aid in order to address the arguments raised by the proponents of “Pakistan dependent upon US” theory.

    Table-1 presents an aggregate total picture of all these four types of US assistance since September 2001. The annual inflows during the last six years amount to approximately $1.75 billion from all types of US assistance – military, economic, and reimbursements for logistics support. Of these flows, the aid – military and economic accounts for $ 787 million etc annually. In order to examine the importance of these flows to Pakistan’s economy and evaluate the dependence of our economy on US four key indicators are selected (a) US assistance as per cent total budgetary expenditure (b) US assistance as per cent of total foreign exchange receipts (c) US assistance as per cent of total current account receipts and (d) US assistance as per cent of total value of imports.. These indicators have been carefully chosen to see as to how much damage will accrue to our balance of payments and fiscal accounts if the US for one reason or the other abruptly decides to withdraw its assistance of all types.

    The results of this analysis shown in Table II indicate that even under the worst case scenario of zero aid flows and no reimbursements for logistics services rendered to the US troops, the diminution in foreign exchange receipts or budgetary resources would be insignificant — varying between 4.5 per cent of total foreign exchange receipts to 7.2 per cent of total budgetary expenditures. The other two indicators i.e. the proportions of total value of imports and current account receipts financed by U.S. assistance account for 6.4 per cent and 5.8 per cent respectively — not worrisome amounts.

    Some observers would argue that the World Bank and ADB assistance to Pakistan would also be reduced if the US takes action to suspend its financial aid. Although this assumption is open to question and debate but even if it is accepted at its face value, the total gross flows of foreign aid from all official bilateral and multilateral sources (excluding reimbursement for services) amount to 8.5 per cent of the country’s foreign exchange receipts. in 2006-07 and 10.8 per cent if the re-imbursement for services is included.

    As a proportion of GDP, these gross flows from all sources work out to only three per cent. Using a more appropriate indicator i.e. net transfers on account of all foreign assistance, the impact is even more negligible — only 1.1 per cent of GDP. Should these amounts raise any alarm bells when the country has already weathered much worse shocks of greater magnitudes in the past seven years.

    This worst possible case scenario ,although possible but not probable, will have a consequence in form of immediate drawdown of our foreign exchange reserves from $13.5 billion to $9.5 billion assuming that all current expenditures in foreign exchange are protected. In case this scenario materializes the policy makers will have to make necessary adjustment in our imports and other foreign exchange expenditures, take measures to attract larger volume of remittances and foreign direct investment and will access the international capital markets. We can be assured on the basis of the above “What if:” kind of analysis that under the highly improbable worst case scenario where the US along with all multilateral development banks withdraw its assistance of all types in one go, Pakistan’s economy is unlikely to face any serious risk.

    It is also less well known that the U.K Government provides much larger volume of economic assistance to Pakistan than the U.S does. The Department for International Development (DFID) of UK has raised its annual grant aid to Pakistan from £240 million ($480 million) to £480 million ($960 million). Most of this aid is targeted at education, health, social development i.e largely on the development of the people.

    Despite such hefty amounts involved – more than the entire U.S economic and military assistance – there are very little noises from the British Parliament or think tanks or even the influential media that Pakistan should be penalised “as it is not doing enough to help meet the British objectives in Afghanistan”. There is a sense of maturity in the U.K that recognises that these kinds of tactics in fact end up alienating and antagonising public opinion in the recipient countries rather than alter their behaviour. Ill will rather than goodwill is created against the donors if they continue to flaunt the stick they possess. A better way is to engage in dialogue, listen to and understand the perspectives and limitations of the recipient countries as to why there is divergence in the views of the two sides and what can be done to set things right.

    There is no doubt that the government and the people of Pakistan do very much appreciate the financial and moral support demonstrated by the US government at the critical moment of Pakistan’s economy. Several other collateral benefits accrued to the economy as a result of the U.S bilateral debt forgiveness, strict scrutiny of remittances through informal channels, the US EXIM Bank and OPIC’s highly positive initiatives and the withdrawal of all different types of economic sanctions. U.S Administration played a helpful role in ensuring larger volume of concessional assistance to Pakistan through the IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank. The prompt and generous response to the Earthquake of October 2005 by the US government, private sector and non-governmental organisations left a very favorable impressions in the minds of Pakistanis.

    US is an important trading and investment partner of Pakistan and we should continue to remain friends with this superpower. The purpose of this analysis is not to show that we care little for our friendly relations or do not cherish friendship with the government or the people of the United States. As a matter of fact we should expand our relations with the United States in the areas of higher education, science and technology transfer, trade, investment and labour flows. We should also seek duty free market access for the products exported from the Reconstruction opportunity Zones (ROZs) in the tribal areas as part of our joint strategy to provide economic benefits to the three million population living on the porous border with Afghanistan. But the main argument of this analysis is that the pundits in the US who believe that they can use the leverage of US official aid to paralyze Pakistan’s economy are sadly mistaken as they have an exaggerated sense of the importance of these official flows. Any attempt to impose conditions that impinge upon the sovereignty of Pakistan or conflict with our own national interests can be resisted without creating a serious dislocation to our macro economic stability or growth prospects.

    This analysis explodes the popularly held myth that Pakistan is so dependent on foreign assistance for its economic survival that pulling the plug would force it to yield under this pressure. These sages and their followers in Pakistan are well advised to seriously reconsider their basic premise. Successive governments in Pakistan since 1974 – whether military, democratically elected or interim- had successfully resisted all kinds of pressures placed upon them for discontinuing the nuclear programme under worse economic conditions than prevail today. The present and the future governments of any political persuasion would be able to meet the highly unlikely event i.e abrupt withdrawal of U.S economic and military assistance of all types and forms with courage and fortitude because the capacity of the country to respond to this and other exogenous shocks has become much resilient in the recent years. During the last seven years Pakistan has successfully withstood the internal and external shocks of severe and prolonged drought, mobilization of Indian troops on the borders, terrorist attacks on foreign nationals, the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and the oil price hike. None of these shocks, some of which are more severe than $750 million provided by the US has hurt the macroeconomic stability or growth. Oil import bill that went up by almost $2 billion in a single year was more devastating in nature but the economy grew at 6.6 per cent despite this shock.

    • S U Turkman  On December 18, 2011 at 4:19 am

      My comments are inserted below in article of Khan Zia:
      .
      There appears to be a serious misunderstanding about the reality and need for US economic assistance to Pakistan.
      .
      TURKMAN: Yeah a very serious misunderstanding that we Liars have just dreamed up recently.
      —————
      A careful analysis will indicate that much of it flows right back to the US in the form of tied purchases, payments to consultants, expensive and often unnecessary feasibility studies, etc.
      .
      TURKMAN: When will it show?
      ————
      There is little to show for it in Pakistan.
      .
      TURKMAN: Because Pak Corruption does not leave anything to show for.
      —–
      What we have received over the past ten year has to be balanced against what Pakistan has lost as a result of the so called ‘war against terror’, which in effect amounts to little more than facilitating the US occupation of Afghanistan. Pakistan’s sacrifice in this diabolic misadventure by far exceeds anything that the US could possibly compensate for. The sooner we end this disastrous involvement the better — politically as well as economically.

      About the US ‘aid’ itself, Dr. Isharat Husain, ex-Vice President of the World Bank and Governor of the State Bank had this to say in the following piece :
      ” the pundits in the US who believe that they can use the leverage of US official aid to paralyze Pakistan’s economy are sadly mistaken as they have an exaggerated sense of the importance of these official flows. Any attempt to impose conditions that impinge upon the sovereignty of Pakistan or conflict with our own national interests can be resisted without creating a serious dislocation to our macro economic stability or growth prospects.”
      .
      TURKMAN: Great rhetoric, no substance.
      ——
      How critical is US assistance?

      By Dr Ishrat Husain, The Dawn, 16th April 2008

      The US economic and military assistance to Pakistan since September 11, 2001 has come in four main forms (a) debt relief (b) military assistance (c) economic assistance (d) emergency relief assistance. In addition, the US . has been reimbursing in dollars the expenditures incurred by Pakistan in supplying logistics services to US troops in Afghanistan.

      Although normally this reimbursement should not be considered part of any aid package, it has been so included in this analysis for the sake of comprehensiveness. If this broader definition of US assistance is accepted, then the next step is to calculate the quantum of this assistance.

      In FY 2002, the US provided debt relief of $600 million and in FY 2003 used Economic Support Fund of $186 million to retire bilateral US debt of $1 billion. Between FY 2004-2007, the US has provided budgetary support of $800 million under Economic Support Fund. In addition it also funded (a) development assistance (b) Child Survival and Health Programme and (c) PL 480 Title II in the amount of $530 million. The US is committed to further $600 million in FY 08 and FY 09 under economic assistance.

      Under Earthquake relief and reconstruction the US has provided $105 million and has committed to allocate an additional amount of $200 million for reconstruction in the AJK and NWFP.

      The military assistance that has been received so far is approximately $900 million with further commitment of$600 million in the coming two years. Finally, the US has been reimbursing Pakistan at $80 million a month for the logistic services provided to the US troops in Afghanistan since 2002. This amount aggregates to $4.8 billion in all and is shown under the services account in the current account balance. This amount is in actual fact, payment for expenditures that Pakistan has been incurring out of its own resources in rupees and is not included in any standard definition of “aid”. But we have included the reimbursements as aid in order to address the arguments raised by the proponents of “Pakistan dependent upon US” theory.
      .
      TURKMAN: Yeah because you do not know, Foreign Aid or Loans do not come in Bundles of Pak Rupees or Dollars. It goes directly in Pak F.E. Reserves Account with IMF unless it was Food, Military Equipment, Hardware or other Humanitarian Help. I don’t know, how long we have to face illiterates like you. I am getting tired of answering articles of crazy illiterates here, who had no idea what the hell they are talking about. I am not reading rest of your B.S. If you are so right, tell Pakistan to stop receiving all the Charity of Aid and Loans and then be ready to be lunched, when millions of Pakistanis start starving to death …!
      —-

  • Gulam Asgar Mitha  On December 18, 2011 at 3:28 am

    When will Pakistan’s civilian and military ever learn not to be dependent on aid? It is costly.

    “Now what?” Has not been addressed by the writer. What will happen? Sherry Rehman, for one, as new Ambassador to US will prostitute herself to the US congress, senate and WH begging on behalf of AAZ, Gilani and the military bunch of creeps and thugs who’ve been sucking the blood of the poor people.

    • S U Turkman  On December 18, 2011 at 4:26 am

      Mr. Mitha,
      Charity of Aid is not costly because everybody knows, its free. Loans cost half percent a year to 5% but why are you saying they are costly, when Pakistan has never paid a single penny back so far and proof of that is Pak Loan Amount has always kept growing.
      Please make Pakistan, stop begging for Charity of Aid and Loans so, population of Pakistan can reduce to half because of deaths by starvation since this is what you want. I understand, Pak Military does not have enough bullets to kill us all.

  • Yasmeen Ali  On December 18, 2011 at 3:45 am

    US attaches more strings to Pak aid

    http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/18-Dec-2011/US-attaches-more-strings-to-Pak-aid

    US attaches more strings to Pak aid
    Published: December 18, 2011

    WASHINGTON (Agencies) – The US House of Representatives has passed a bill imposing more conditions on aid to Pakistan, especially linking it to Islamabad’s cooperation in war on terror and its efforts in curbing terrorists, including Haqqani network.
    Reports on Saturday said, The House of Representatives passed a comprehensive funding bill with solid bipartisan support – 296 lawmakers voted for it and 121 voted against it. The House passed the measure on Friday and the Senate is expected to vote sometime this weekend.
    The legislation freezes aid to Pakistan until the secretary of state can certify that Islamabad is cooperating on counterterrorism. The aid amount was unspecified in the legislation as Congress gave the Obama administration flexibility to figure out the funds.
    The bill provides for $53.3 billion, with strings attached, for foreign assistance and the State Department funding for countries (including Pakistan, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority); $42.1 billion for the base budget; and $11.2 billion for the Overseas Contingency Operations account. This account pays for the State Department’s role in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other expenses. The bill does provide $3.1 billion in security assistance for ally Israel and the restrictions carry a waiver for US national security.
    A separate Pakistan-specific bill freezes $700 million aid to the country unless it can prove it is taking steps to stop militants based on its soil from making IEDs that kill American troops in Afghanistan. This amount would be held back until the defence secretary provides Congress a report on how Islamabad is countering the threat of improvised explosive devices.
    The aforesaid legislation is part of a sweeping, $1 trillion-plus year-end spending package that provides money for 10 Cabinet agencies through September. Foreign aid amounts to just 1 per cent of the federal budget, but lawmakers intent on cutting the deficit, especially conservative tea party Republicans, have clamoured for significant reductions in spending overseas. Democrats and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pressed to spare the accounts.
    Lawmakers shifted costs for security and economic assistance, funds for the State Department and for the US Agency for International Development into the account, increasing the amount from $7.6 billion to $11.2 billion. Still, the base budget is some $6 billion less than the current level and $8.7 billion below what President Barack Obama sought for the fiscal year that began on October 1.
    The bill continues the existing restrictions on aid to the Palestinian Authority, requiring the secretary to certify that it is committed to a peaceful co-existence with Israel and is taking appropriate steps to combat terrorism. Economic assistance for the Palestinians is in jeopardy if they pursue statehood recognition in the United Nations over the objections of the United States and Israel, which wants to resume talks. The amount was not spelled out, again leaving it to the administration to sort out.
    Reflecting concerns about uncertainty within the Egyptian government, the bill would block release of $1.3 billion in security assistance to Cairo and $250 million in economic assistance until the secretary of state makes several assurances to Congress. She must certify that Egypt is abiding by a 1979 peace treaty with Israel and that military rulers are supporting the transition to civilian government with free and fair elections and “implementing policies to protect freedom of expression, association and religion and due process of law.”
    In a victory for congressional Democrats and the Obama administration, the bill dropped a House-backed ban on federal money for international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide abortion information, counseling or referrals. The policy has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter century since Republican President Ronald Reagan first adopted it in1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office. Within days of his inauguration, Obama reversed the policy.

  • Ian Ombima  On December 18, 2011 at 12:48 pm

    No aid is not for free, most aid packages come with economic sanctions. The sooner Pakistan and other developing countries can become independent from as opposed to dependent on foreign aid, closer these countries will be on the road to progress because their economies can start from a clean slate.

    Pakistan obviously has not benefited from US aid in the past nor is there any likelihood of any tangible benefits to the country from future aid. As it stands with the US withdrawing the economy in Pakistan will not collapse. This is an opportunity to realise the nations natural talents and potential.

    • S U Turkman  On December 18, 2011 at 7:40 pm

      Well then, why don’t you find a way to provide Charity of Aid and Loans to all the poor Moslim Countries so, they can hate you and send Sneak Attackers to kill people of your country also?
      We can see, Pakistan has not benefited at all with any US Charity of Aid and Loans. People riding Donkeys using Mobile Phones does not mean anything. USA should provide Cars to every Pakistani. Then, may be some of us would think, yes we are benefiting from US Charity, not even half. You see, its against Islam to be thankful to Non Moslims while its the greatest part of Islam to keep lying, keep begging, keep cheating and keep back-stabbing. Allaho Akbar …!

  • Malik Saad  On December 18, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    Nothing will happen to us only v have to change our living styles, this will happen one or the other day. We should double or triple our ” opium ” production to give them a lesson. they deserve it. There is an old saying that ” If you lick a bull he will kick you and if kick a bull he will lick you.” We had enough kicks now its their time to have some.

  • S U Turkman  On December 19, 2011 at 12:43 am

    Yeah Mr. Malik but Taliban had tried that. It did not work at all. Actually, USA’s Department of Drugs Enforcement used to regularly bomb the Coca Growing Armed Rebels in Columbia. You would never be as advanced as Colombians in Drug Trade. Send some ISI Officers to get trained there.

  • Arif Khan  On December 20, 2011 at 12:45 am

    Dear YAA the Jaamat e Islami can replace this by donations collected in form ofZaqat and other means as they are basically “anti american lobby” so let them replace the aid..and keep the NATO routes blocked. after 2014 itwll be all over and after USA doesnt need Pakistan anymore Pakistan will find New friends to take America’s place ?? The military will have to be Trimmed and we may have to make peace wih all our neighbors per force ArifKhan
    —–

  • Autumn Reynolds  On December 31, 2011 at 4:49 am

    OMG, do you see whats happening in Syria? In spite of a brutal government crackdown, the manifestations continue

  • S U Turkman  On December 31, 2011 at 11:48 pm

    OMG, do you see whats happening in USA?
    In spite of a brutal government crackdown, the manifestations continue on. Occupy Movement is succeeding and come Summer, it would become even worse. How come NATO has not started bombing White House like it had done against Qaddafi in Libya?
    Why no Statements from Obama in favor of Pro Democracy Movement in USA?

  • Coupon  On February 9, 2012 at 5:11 am

    Content Year to everyone of your companion in the world! How’s it going going to enjoy?

  • John Reyes  On March 17, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    Hah, Italy demonstrators rally against Berlusconi

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 104 other followers

%d bloggers like this: