US shall reduce the aid for Pak

[IBSA]

US unlikely to renew aid to Pak under Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill
Press Trust of India | Washington April 23, 2014 Last Updated at 12:46 IST

The Obama Administration is unlikely to renew financial assistance to Pakistan under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill when its five-year term expires in October this year, but the robust civilian aid is expected to continue, albeit in reduced quantity.

The civilian aid worth USD 4.1 billion has been actually provided to Pakistan so far of the USD 7.5 billion (USD 1.5 billion per annum) for the five-year period 2009-2014, that was authorised by the Congress under the Bill - also known as the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act - that was signed into law by US President Barack Obama in October 2009, according to figures accessed by PTI.

While there is no official word on the future of the Bill from the US government as it comes to an end in October this year, all indications are that the piece of legislation which five years ago was billed as "landmark" and reflective of the long-term US commitment to Pakistan has served its purpose in strengthening of democratic institutions, education and civil society and does not need to be renewed, as initially planned.

The Bill has set the stage for a longer term cooperation between the two countries, it is being argued.

The change in plan is partly due to the repeated insistence of the Pakistan government led by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif that his country wants "trade and not aid", partly by the implementation constraints there and also by America's own budgetary constraints and of late the need to find funds for new crisis areas like Ukraine and Syria.

This was indicated a few weeks ago when a powerful Congressional committee cut USD 10 million from the Bill for Ukraine, after Russia annexed Crimea through military intervention.

The House of Representatives and the Senate, however, did not approve diversion of this fund from Pakistan.

Authoritative figures available with PTI indicate that the civilian aid appropriated to Pakistan during these five years period (2009-2014) touched the USD 1.5 billion mark only once.

In the fiscal year 2010, beginning October 2009, the US appropriated USD 1.515 billion worth of civilian assistance to Pakistan, that came down to USD 1.086 billion in 2011; which dropped to USD 944.5 million in 2012; USD 791 million in 2013 and further to USD 648 million in the current fiscal of 2014.

However, the actual amount spent was much less.

In the five years (2009-2014) of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill, the actual US civilian assistance to Pakistan was USD 4.1 billion. This includes roughly USD 1 billion of humanitarian assistance following the floods of 2010.

The remaining portions of the Bill will be spent after 2014.

The Obama Administration, however, is expected to continue its long-term commitment to Pakistan which would be reflected in the continuation of civilian aid, albeit much less than it is currently now.

US unlikely to renew aid to Pak under Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill | Business Standard

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

 

[Neo]

Stop USAid to Pakistan!
No aid no blackmailing.

 

[Blackwater]

Stop USAid to Pakistan!
No aid no blackmailing.

Will ur leader agrees with u??

 

[ladder]

Stop USAid to Pakistan!
No aid no blackmailing.

That's more of a wish, rather than a statement.

 

[trackwhack]

Stop USAid to Pakistan!
No aid no blackmailing.

Yea, you have the Saudis now to beg from. So go back USA.

 

[Neo]

Leadership is the problem, they are corrupt like hell. We need another guy like Musharraf for atleast a decade or a bloody revolution in Pakistan.
Our active labor force is 55 million, we can generate enough revenue from taxes to pay for our bills and still have plenty to transform the country.

 

[ladder]

Leadership is the problem, they are corrupt like hell. We need another guy like Musharraf for atleast a decade or a bloody revolution in Pakistan.
Our active labor force is 55 million, we can generate enough revenue from taxes to pay for our bills and still have plenty to transform the country.

Musharraf was pro-USA, or was threatened to become pro-USA, so better watch out what you wish.


By revolution, you mean, the revolution promised by Thahir-Ul Quadri?

 

[Compersion]

Another problem is the identity of Pakistan. What is Pakistan and what is Pakistan Constitution. Is Pakistan a Sunni Islamic State alligned to the Sunni group. Is Pakistan a progressive Muslim State aligned to the Turkey group. There is more and more Islamic - and Sunni and Arab influence and also we must not forget that its excisitence is on the sole reason of being Anti-India dominance and inability to live with people from India (that must discard it from Turkey similarities). But the true identity of Pakistan is being challenged more and more. And the fact that Pakistan makes it known that it is the First Islamic state to have the Nuclear Weapons makes it wonder where the priorities are on economics - on its own (confused) identity.

 

[Neo]

Musharraf was pro-USA, or was threatened to become pro-USA, so better watch out what you wish.


By revolution, you mean, the revolution promised by Thahir-Ul Quadri?

No, Musharraf was a pragmatic leader who tried to create a balance with our alliances vs adversaries. He paved way to open diplomatic relations with Israel and to befriend Russia. He did a lot of damage control to improve ties with USA. He made China our strongest ally. He was a man with vision.

 

[Neo]

Another problem is the identity of Pakistan. What is Pakistan and what is Pakistan Constitution. Is Pakistan a Sunni Islamic State alligned to the Sunni group. Is Pakistan a progressive Muslim State aligned to the Turkey group. There is more and more Islamic - and Sunni and Arab influence and also we must not forget that its excisitence is on the sole reason of being Anti-India dominance and inability to live with people from India (that must discard it from Turkey similarities). But the true identity of Pakistan is being challenged more and more. And the fact that Pakistan makes it known that it is the First Islamic state to have the Nuclear Weapons makes it wonder where the priorities are on economics - on its own (confused) identity.

Well said and I partly agree there. But the identity crisis remain within the political circles.
Aam admi doesn't want the mullahs to rule, aam admi has no problem living with Shiahs or other minorities and aam admi has no problem with India.
Politicians create mess after mess, our military had to clean it up government after governmen and the aam admi is caught in the middle.

 

[Compersion]

Well said and I partly agree there. But the identity crisis remain within the political circles.
Aam admi doesn't want the mullahs to rule, aam admi has no problem living with Shiahs or other minorities and aam admi has no problem with India.
Politicians create mess after mess, our military had to clean it up government after governmen and the aam admi is caught in the middle.

Well said - Pakistan has to give up its Nuclear Weapons to live in peace. Pakistan needs to believe in its existence without Nuclear Weapons.

Read more about the Shimla Agreement and fear of India in Pakistan (it is displaced):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simla_Agreement

 

[rock127]

The hatred towards India is the IDENTITY of Pakis.

Army exploits it and rules jahil Paki janta.

Aam Paki is brainwashed enough not to understand anything.

 

[Neo]

Well said - Pakistan has to give up its Nuclear Weapons to live in peace. Pakistan needs to believe in its existence without Nuclear Weapons.

Read more about the Shimla Agreement and fear of India in Pakistan (it is displaced):

Simla Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No way we will give up our nukes. The world has learnt a lesson from Cremia; we don't want to become another Ukraine.
Man, they must regret giving up their nukes.

 

[Compersion]

No way we will give up our nukes. The world has learnt a lesson from Cremia; we don't want to become another Ukraine.
Man, they must regret giving up their nukes.

But the reason for the founding and current existence of Pakistan was that its people cannot live with Indians - why you fear Cremia - is there more and more Pakis that want to be part of India.

 

[ladder]

No, Musharraf was a pragmatic leader who tried to create a balance with our alliances vs adversaries. He paved way to open diplomatic relations with Israel and to befriend Russia. He did a lot of damage control to improve ties with USA. He made China our strongest ally. He was a man with vision.

He was a man with duplicity. Not that I say it is any bad attribute with respect to national security. He being autocratic, military dictator could venture into territories where civilian leadership shall not dare tread.

But, you also need to factor in what happens when the duplicity is exposed. And exactly where he failed. Being from Pakistan hopefully you would need no further elaboration.

To answer a simple question can a democratically elected Musharraf, do what a dictator Musharraf did? If yes, you are delusional. If no, you want another dictator. And dictatorship comes with it's own set of lacunae, and going by history, masses of Pakistan have not whole heartedly accommodated those.

So, what is the solution? Pragmatism be built into education system which clearly tells the pupil who they are and not who they were. Which will weed out pessimism prevalent in the system and will weed out nearly all the bad effect that pessimism has.

Then, you would see any leader who is half as visionary as Musharraf too will be able to turn around your country.

 

[Neo]

But the reason for the founding and current existence of Pakistan was that its people cannot live with Indians - why you fear Cremia - is there more and more Pakis that want to be part of India.

Where did you het that illusion from?

 

[Compersion]

Where did you het that illusion from?

You mentioned Crimea first - do you know what happened there and why. Also is it difficult to accept that people in Pakistan would want to be part of India. Whats the difference between Indian Muslim and a Pakistani.

I understand the point you are making is that Nuclear deterrence strengthens the security of the state.

 

[Neo]

He was a man with duplicity. Not that I say it is any bad attribute with respect to national security. He being autocratic, military dictator could venture into territories where civilian leadership shall not dare tread.

But, you also need to factor in what happens when the duplicity is exposed. And exactly where he failed. Being from Pakistan hopefully you would need no further elaboration.

To answer a simple question can a democratically elected Musharraf, do what a dictator Musharraf did? If yes, you are delusional. If no, you want another dictator. And dictatorship comes with it's own set of lacunae, and going by history, masses of Pakistan have not whole heartedly accommodated those.

So, what is the solution? Pragmatism be built into education system which clearly tells the pupil who they are and not who they were. Which will weed out pessimism prevalent in the system and will weed out nearly all the bad effect that pessimism has.

Then, you would see any leader who is half as visionary as Musharraf too will be able to turn around your country.

Democracy has no place in an illetterate society controlled by feudal lords, period!
Our best option is to have a semi democratic chinese model which must eliminate the feudals and empower the comon man.

A democratic elected Musharraf would not be as strong but he went into the history as the least corrupt regime. If he was given another term he would have completed his economic reforms, 3 large dams would have been built and the economy would be growing at a healthy rate with no loadshedding.

Pessimis can only be killed if there are visible results of governments policies. The middle class grew strong under mushaaraf and poverty was reduced to a record low of 23%.

 

[Neo]

You mentioned Crimea first - do you know what happened there and why. Also is it difficult to accept that people in Pakistan would want to be part of India. Whats the difference between Indian Muslim and a Pakistani.

I understand the point you are making is that Nuclear deterrence strengthens the security of the state.

Cremia has a large Russian population but she was an integral part of Ukraine. Russian cannot just invade and hold a referendum and annex it. It would be a different thing if under a democratic government Cremia would force a referendum and merge with mother Russia.

Ukraine and other three ex-Soviet states gave up their nukes under security guarantee from major nuclear powers.
Imho Ukraine got fcuked here with fake guarantees.