Future economic growth threatened

As is well known, Pakistan has boomed since 9/11, as a result of a total of $27.5 billion of aid, in various forms.

Yet the last few months have seen critcism of Pakistan growing in the Western media…are the good time’s coming to an end?

Bush to Warn Pakistan to Act on Terror

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 — President Bush has decided to send an unusually tough message to one of his most important allies, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the president ofPakistan, warning him that the newly Democratic Congress could cut aid to his country unless his forces become far more aggressive in hunting down operatives with Al Qaeda, senior administration officials say.

The decision came after the White House concluded that General Musharraf is failing to live up to commitments he made to Mr. Bush during a visit here in September. General Musharraf insisted then, both in private and public, that a peace deal he struck with tribal leaders in one of the country’s most lawless border areas would not diminish the hunt for the leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban or their training camps.

Now, American intelligence officials have concluded that the terrorist infrastructure is being rebuilt, and that while Pakistan has attacked some camps, its overall effort has flagged.

“He’s made a number of assurances over the past few months, but the bottom line is that what they are doing now is not working,” one senior administration official who deals often with South Asian issues said late last week. “The message we’re sending to him now is that the only thing that matters is results.”

Democrats, who took control of Congress last month, have urged the White House to put greater pressure on Pakistan because of statements from American commanders that units based in Pakistan that are linked to the Taliban, Afghanistan’s ousted rulers, are increasing their attacks into Afghanistan.

For the time being, officials say, the White House has ruled out unilateral strikes against the training camps that American spy satellites are monitoring in North Waziristan, in Pakistan’s tribal areas on the border. The fear is that such strikes would result in what one administration official referred to as a “shock to the stability” of General Musharraf’s government.

General Musharraf, a savvy survivor in the brutal world of Pakistani politics, knows that the administration is hesitant to push him too far. If his government collapses, it is not clear who would succeed him or who would gain control over Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear weapons.

But the spread of Al Qaeda in the tribal areas threatens to undermine a central element of Mr. Bush’s argument that he is succeeding in the administration’s effort to curb terrorism. The bomb plot disrupted in Britain last summer, involving plans to hijack airplanes, has been linked by British and American intelligence agencies to camps in the Pakistan-Afghan border areas.
General Musharraf has told American officials that Pakistani military operations in the tribal areas in recent years so alienated local residents that they no longer provide the central government with quality intelligence about the movements of senior Islamic militants.

Congressional Democrats have threatened to review military assistance and other aid to Pakistan unless they see evidence of aggressive attacks on Al Qaeda. The House last month passed a measure linking future military aid to White House certification that Pakistan “is making all possible efforts to prevent the Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control.”
Pakistan is now the fifth-largest recipient of American aid. Mr. Bush has proposed $785 million in aid to Pakistan in his new budget, including $300 million in military aid to help Pakistan combat Islamic radicalism in the country.
The rumblings from Congress give Mr. Bush and his top advisers a way of conveying the seriousness of the problem, officials said, without appearing to issue a direct threat to the proud Pakistani leader themselves.
“We think the Pakistani aid is at risk in Congress,” said the senior official, who declined to speak on the record because the subject involved intelligence matters.

The administration has sent a series of emissaries to see the Pakistani leader in recent weeks, including the new secretary of defense, Robert M. Gates. Mr. Gates was charged with prompting more action in a region in which American forces operate with great constraints, if they are allowed in at all.
“This is not the type of relationship where we can order action,” said an administration official involved in discussions over Pakistan policy. “We can strongly encourage.”

Relations between General Musharraf and Mr. Bush have always been tense, as the Pakistani leader veers between his need for American support and protection and his awareness that many Pakistani people — and the intelligence service — have strong sympathies for Al Qaeda and the resurgent Taliban. Officials involved with the issue describe the current moment between the leaders as especially fraught.

Mr. Bush was deeply skeptical of the deal General Musharraf struck with the tribal leaders last year, fearing that it would limit the government’s powers to intercede in what Mr. Bush has called the “wild west” of Waziristan, administration officials said at the time.

During his visit to Washington last fall, General Musharraf said the agreement he signed with tribal leaders, giving them greater sovereignty in the region, had “three bottom lines.” He said one was “no Al Qaeda activities in our tribal agencies or across the border in Afghanistan.” The second was “no Taliban activity” in the same areas. And the third was “no Talibanization,” which he described as “obscurantist thoughts or way of life.”

American intelligence officials have made an assessment that senior Qaeda leaders in Pakistan have re-established significant control over their global network and are training operatives in some of the camps for strikes on Western targets.

One American official familiar with intelligence reports about Pakistan said intelligence agencies had established “clear linkages” between the Qaeda camps and the plot to blow up trans-Atlantic flights that was thwarted last August. American analysts said the recent trials of terrorism suspects in Britain showed that some defendants had been trained in Pakistan.

American officials say one reason General Musharraf agreed to pull government troops back to their barracks in North Waziristan and allow tribal leaders greater control over security was to give him time to rebuild his intelligence network in the border region gradually.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/world/asia/26pakistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Re: Future economic growth threatened

yea right, twist every topic towards your own thinking, where did you get your figures from??

american may want more and more from every country on the earth.

9/11 may be factor but its not all pak economy is depend upon.

useless rant and single argument you have in every single post.

Re: Future economic growth threatened

if that’s not all the economic boom is based on, how was the economy pre-9/11 compared to after? the answer is obvious

Perhaps you should look at fact’s before you speak.
An interesting report in the respected International Herald Tribune:

Since 9/11, America’s cost for Musharraf’s cooperation has reached a staggering $27.5 billion. Economic and military aid has totaled $4.5 billion. In addition, the United States is providing $5 billion in credit guarantees for the purchase of 62 nuclear capable F-16 fighter planes and has orchestrated the postponement of debt repayments to aid donor countries totaling another $13.5 bill

Since the economic viability of Pakistan depends on continued aid, a credible threat to cut it off would alarm both the armed forces and sectors of the Pakistani business and political establishment, forcing Musharraf to tack with the wind.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/22/opinion/edharris.php

‘sorry’ if the truth hurt’s u :rolleyes:

either way, that ‘debate’ is not what this thread is about

Re: Future economic growth threatened

One of the reason’s US seems to be pressing Pakistan now:

KABUL, Afghanistan, Feb. 24 — Taliban fighters who seized control of a remote town in southern Afghanistan three weeks ago have started a campaign of arrests and reprisals against tribal elders and townspeople, according to tribal elders. The elders called on NATO forces and the government to move against the insurgents, even if it means bombing the town.

The spokesman and an elder interviewed by telephone said that a Taliban leadership council in Quetta, Pakistan, was ordering the arrests and issuing the death threats.

The elders who spoke asked not to be identified for fear of reprisals from the Taliban. Two said they had received death threats from the Taliban and had fled their homes. Other members of the tribal council were in hiding, they said.

One elder said the Taliban had told him by telephone that they were under strong pressure from Pakistan to seize control of the town and now to go further.

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/world/asia/26afghan.html

Re: Future economic growth threatened

$27B aid LOL LOL LOL... need I say more

Re: Future economic growth threatened

Someone has their figures way off!

Re: Future economic growth threatened

Selig Harrison is widely respected, and i note the specific's he addressed, the various forms of aid (opposed to just direct), to accumulate the figure are conveniently ignored

Either way, the amount, $5 bil, or $25 billion is not the point.

This thread is about the future of Pakistan, esp with negative reports flooding Western papers almost weekly...bad omen

Re: Future economic growth threatened

I'm sorry but how has aid amounted to $27bn?

I believe it was 3 bn, spread over 5 rears, something like that. Pakistan's growth whilst benefitting from the favorable political climate, is primarily driven by increased in domestic demand for consumer goods.

Export growth

and FDI from non US sources.

This thread is nothing but anti Pak propoganda.

Re: Future economic growth threatened

$27 Billion is too high for direct aid. I think they are counting indirect aid in terms of debt rescheduling, loan forgiveness, new developmental loans from IMF/ADB/WB etc. that were due to US support. US is largest voter in these organizations. I remember an article by Dr. Farrukh Saleem regarding this. Let me see if I can dig this out.

Re: Future economic growth threatened

legbreak, One thing you must add to the $3 Bn is the payments made from Pentagon which are not classified as "aid". I believe they amount to 80 to 100 mn dollars per month.

Re: Future economic growth threatened

That's not aid, they are renting 2 airbases, although not FOB's. That's business.

Re: Future economic growth threatened

okay economic and military aid is $4.5B fine

$5B in credit guarantees? does anyone know what a credit guarantee is? has anyone ever cosigned a loan? plus this is for a specific purpose, for buying fighter planes. so has zero impact on economy.

orchestrated the postponment of debt..now its not paying off debt, its just delayng it. Something that the pakistani govt was doing even before 9/11 and even without US help.

..it however does not mean that Pakistan got $27.5B ..now does it?

Re: Future economic growth threatened

Well, let's just say that we are getting a larger than normal rent for those businesses ;) BTW, they stopped renting the airbases but are still paying us the rent.

Re: Future economic growth threatened

Correct. It is the total amount of various form's of aid.

Re: Future economic growth threatened

i see your point's you are trying to raise. Without writing an essay, i would say:

getting the money for the F-16's saves the burden of paying for them now.

The same principle applies to the debt rescheduling, the amount hugely increased after post 9/11 US 'help'. Thus the combination of the two have a big impact.

So this is all a great help, as we have seen, however the tide may be turning, which is worrying, history show the US is hardly a loyal 'ally'.

Re: Future economic growth threatened

It seems you post on this forum because it is a stage for you to show the world your inferiority complex. I am glad everyone in this thread has realized this vain attempt, and called you out for it.

Re: Future economic growth threatened

The thread starters nick is enough to prove that alone.

Re: Future economic growth threatened

Further development’s on this story.

No doubt the fact’s on the ground show a ratcheting up of the pressure, using threats to cut off aid, thus hitting the economy as the main ‘public’ weapon. Who knows what is being theatened privately.

This is a big topic in Pakistan as things have been ok since 9/11 but we will be in trouble if the US drop’s us. Ok for those living in Amreeka or their fake dream world, in reality, a worrying development.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/world/asia/26cnd-pakistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Cheney Warns Pakistan to Act on Terror

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 — Vice President Dick Cheney made an unannounced trip to Pakistan on Monday to deliver what officials in Washington described as an unusually tough message Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, warning him that the newly Democratic Congress could cut aid to his country unless his forces become far more aggressive in hunting down operatives with Al Qaeda.

Mr. Cheney’s trip was shrouded in secrecy, and he was on the ground for only a few hours, sharing a private lunch with the Pakistani leader at his palace. Notably, Mr. Cheney traveled with the deputy director of theCentral Intelligence Agency, Steve Kappes, an indication that the conversation with the Pakistani president likely included discussion of American intelligence agency contentions that Al Qaeda camps have been reconstituted along the border of Afghanistan.

The decision to send Mr. Cheney secretly to Pakistan came after the White House concluded that General Musharraf is failing to live up to commitments he made to Mr. Bush during a visit here in September. General Musharraf insisted then, both in private and public, that a peace deal he struck with tribal leaders in one of the country’s most lawless border areas would not diminish the hunt for the leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Now, American intelligence officials have concluded that the terrorist infrastructure is being rebuilt, and that while Pakistan has attacked some camps, its overall effort has flagged.

“He’s made a number of assurances over the past few months, but the bottom line is that what they are doing now is not working,” one senior administration official who deals often with South Asian issues said late last week. “The message we’re sending to him now is that the only thing that matters is results.”

Reuters reported from Islamabad that a Pakistani official, whom it did not name, told reporters that in his few hours on the ground Mr. Cheney had pressed for more action. “He asked President Musharraf that Pakistan should do more,” the official told Reuters, giving no specifics.

The vice president’s office asked news organizations that knew of Mr. Cheney’s upcoming trip, and the small number of reporters traveling with him, to withhold any mention of his travels until after he had left the country. That request went far beyond the usual precautions as American officials travel into and out of Pakistan. President Bush’s visit there last year was announced in advance, and a recent trip by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was announced after he had landed in the country.

It was unclear if the request reflected Mr. Cheeny’s well-known penchant for secrecy — he said nothing in public during his visit — or an increasing unease by the Secret Service about how freely al Qaeda and Taliban operatives are moving in Pakistan. There have long been doubts about the loyalties of some members of Mr. Musharaff’s intelligence service, and assassination attempts against him have been linked to al Qaeda.

Democrats, who took control of Congress last month, have urged the White House to put greater pressure on Pakistan because of statements from American commanders that units based in Pakistan that are linked to the Taliban, Afghanistan’s ousted rulers, are increasing their attacks into Afghanistan.

For the time being, officials say, the White House has ruled out unilateral strikes against the training camps that American spy satellites are monitoring in North Waziristan, in Pakistan’s tribal areas on the border. The fear is that such strikes would result in what one administration official referred to as a “shock to the stability” of General Musharraf’s government.

General Musharraf, a savvy survivor in the brutal world of Pakistani politics, knows that the administration is hesitant to push him too far. If his government collapses, it is not clear who would succeed him or who would gain control over Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear weapons.

But the spread of Al Qaeda in the tribal areas threatens to undermine a central element of Mr. Bush’s argument that he is succeeding in the administration’s effort to curb terrorism. The bomb plot disrupted in Britain last summer, involving plans to hijack airplanes, has been linked by British and American intelligence agencies to camps in the Pakistan-Afghan border areas.
General Musharraf has told American officials that Pakistani military operations in the tribal areas in recent years so alienated local residents that they no longer provide the central government with quality intelligence about the movements of senior Islamic militants.

Congressional Democrats have threatened to review military assistance and other aid to Pakistan unless they see evidence of aggressive attacks on Al Qaeda. The House last month passed a measure linking future military aid to White House certification that Pakistan “is making all possible efforts to prevent the Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control.”
Pakistan is now the fifth-largest recipient of American aid. Mr. Bush has proposed $785 million in aid to Pakistan in his new budget, including $300 million in military aid to help Pakistan combat Islamic radicalism in the country.

The rumblings from Congress give Mr. Bush and his top advisers a way of conveying the seriousness of the problem, officials said, without appearing to issue a direct threat to the proud Pakistani leader themselves.

“We think the Pakistani aid is at risk in Congress,” said the senior official, who declined to speak on the record because the subject involved intelligence matters.

The administration has sent a series of emissaries to see the Pakistani leader in recent weeks, including the new secretary of defense, Robert M. Gates. Mr. Gates was charged with prompting more action in a region in which American forces operate with great constraints, if they are allowed in at all.
“This is not the type of relationship where we can order action,” said an administration official involved in discussions over Pakistan policy. “We can strongly encourage.”

Relations between General Musharraf and Mr. Bush have always been tense, as the Pakistani leader veers between his need for American support and protection and his awareness that many Pakistani people — and the intelligence service — have strong sympathies for Al Qaeda and the resurgent Taliban. Officials involved with the issue describe the current moment between the leaders as especially fraught.

Mr. Bush was deeply skeptical of the deal General Musharraf struck with the tribal leaders last year, fearing that it would limit the government’s powers to intercede in what Mr. Bush has called the “wild west” of Waziristan, administration officials said at the time.

During his visit to Washington last fall, General Musharraf said the agreement he signed with tribal leaders, giving them greater sovereignty in the region, had “three bottom lines.” He said one was “no Al Qaeda activities in our tribal agencies or across the border in Afghanistan.” The second was “no Taliban activity” in the same areas. And the third was “no Talibanization,” which he described as “obscurantist thoughts or way of life.”

American intelligence officials have made an assessment that senior Qaeda leaders in Pakistan have re-established significant control over their global network and are training operatives in some of the camps for strikes on Western targets.

One American official familiar with intelligence reports about Pakistan said intelligence agencies had established “clear linkages” between the Qaeda camps and the plot to blow up trans-Atlantic flights that was thwarted last August. American analysts said the recent trials of terrorism suspects in Britain showed that some defendants had been trained in Pakistan.
American officials say one reason General Musharraf agreed to pull government troops back to their barracks in North Waziristan and allow tribal leaders greater control over security was to give him time to rebuild his intelligence network in the border region gradually.

Re: Future economic growth threatened

Musharaff should tell the yanks to go to hell. Pakistan has already bent over backwards to accommodate their stupid demands and nothing is good enough for them. The economic aid we have received from them is already quite marginalized and does not have any serious impact on our economy. It is high time that Musharaff stands up to the yanks and asks for some serious economic and military assistance for all the sacrifices Pakistan has made in the past and is making at the moment to fight their War.

Re: Future economic growth threatened

if pakistan want to get along with the US then i suggest they stay out the Israelli-Palestine issue. i am a supporter of the palestine people but any country which wants to get involved in this issue should take a look at how they would cope with a negative response from the usa.