Helping defeat Dana Rohrabacher in next election

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Last time Pakistani American community played huge part in defeating another anti Pakistan US Senator Larry Pressler. Pressler Amendment put sanctions on Pakistan in 1990s. We need to do same to this guy.

Congressman has history of anti-Pakistan moves | World | DAWN.COM

Congressman has history of anti-Pakistan moves
Anwar Iqbal | National | From the Newspaper
59 mins ago

US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher’s failed attempts include a move to prohibit the use of funds meant for providing assistance to Pakistan.—File Photo

WASHINGTON: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who tabled the Balochistan resolution in the US House of Representatives earlier this week, has a history of making anti-Pakistan moves in Congress but has not always been successful in achieving his objectives.

His failed attempts include a move to prohibit the use of funds meant for providing assistance to Pakistan.

But despite his efforts, the Department of Defence Appropriations Act, 2012, provides $1.1 billion to Pakistan from the counter-insurgency fund, which will remain available until Sept 30, 2013.

This fund will be available to the US Secretary of Defence, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide assistance to Pakistan’s security forces.

Although Mr Rohrabacher tried specifically to prevent Pakistan from using this fund for enhancing its defence capabilities, the act clearly states that the fund can be used for the provision of equipment, supplies, services and training.

The fund can also be used for facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and construction to build the counter-insurgency capability of Pakistan’s military and Frontier Corps.

Soon after US forces killed Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad on May 2, 2011, Mr Rohrabacher tabled an amendment in the House to prevent all assistance to Pakistan “under any provision of law”.

He accused Pakistan of not only having sheltered the Al Qaeda chief but also of trying to persuade President Hamid Karzai to “strategically move Afghanistan away from the United States and its ‘imperial designs’ and to ally with Pakistan’s ‘all-weather’ friend, the communist People’s Republic of China”.

Mr Rohrabacher accused Pakistan of harbouring terrorists, launching attacks inside India and of selling nuclear technology to other nations.

The congressman pointed out that Pakistan had received over $18 billion in assistance over the past decade from the United States and was due to receive additional assistance.

“Pakistan through its ISI and military has shown itself to act against the interests of the United States by supporting terrorists who kill Americans and in other ways not befitting a recipient of United States aid,” he argued.

But the move failed and the US Congress did not cut off its civilian or military assistance to Pakistan.

On March 3, 2011, Mr Rohrabacher submitted a resolution, urging the government of Pakistan to release Raymond Davis, who shot and killed two Pakistani citizens in Lahore on Jan 27, 2011.

The Congressman urged the US House of Representatives to “freeze all US military assistance to Pakistan”, until Mr Davis was released.

The House did not endorse his request.

Like Mr Rohrabacher’s previous resolutions, the House has also sent the resolution on Balochistan to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which will decide whether to entertain or reject it.

But unlike his previous moves, this is a concurrent resolution which cannot become a law. It can, however, be adopted to convey Congress’s dismay over the situation in Balochistan.

But to do so, it has to be approved by both the Senate and the House and so far it has not been moved in the Senate.

2

Re: Helping defeat Dana Rohrabacher in next election

An awareness campaign needs to be launched by Pakistani Americans in this regard.

3

Re: Helping defeat Dana Rohrabacher in next election

^^^ We need a Super Pack & lot money and help from Pakistani organizations in the US.

4

Re: Helping defeat Dana Rohrabacher in next election

How can i contribute?

5

Re: Helping defeat Dana Rohrabacher in next election

You can’t unless you are a US citizen, but these are the orgs that can help.

Pakistani Associations In USA

6

Re: Helping defeat Dana Rohrabacher in next election

Can’t practically but wishing and praying for his defeat.

7

Re: Helping defeat Dana Rohrabacher in next election

Pakistan Association in US should send a delegation to the congressman and should ask him about Kashmir and Palestine. He should also be asked if drone attacks are not violations of human rights?

8

Re: Helping defeat Dana Rohrabacher in next election

what about Canadian citizens?

9

Re: Helping defeat Dana Rohrabacher in next election

Just another douch trying to make his mark on the political landscape. But there are the wiser in both Senate and Congress who know that such outright lunacy will get them dusted in Afghanistan.

If wishes were horses, Dana R. (sounds like a chick's name) would be a riding-knight every night.

Not saying Balochistan issue is not an exploitable one. Here's to hoping the domestic political numb skulls in Pakistan pre-empt and take appropriate measures and address the Balochistan issues with sincerity so people like Dana don't get the lime light.

10

Re: Helping defeat Dana Rohrabacher in next election

haha. That is true. :D

11

Re: Helping defeat Dana Rohrabacher in next election

Eddie Walsh: Rohrabacher Believes “Pakistani Government Does Not Deserve Respect”

Last week, Dr. C. Christine Fair of Georgetown University outlined her reasons for attacking the recent U.S. congressional hearing on Baluchistan. Yesterday, she followed up those comments with a new article on Huffington Post. Faced with such strong criticism from one of his witnesses, I wondered what Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), the chair of the hearing, thought about her remarks. We therefore discussed the four major points of criticism so that he could respond.

“Stick it to the Pakistanis”

First and foremost, Rohrabacher assails the claim by Fair that the underlying motive for the hearing was to “stick it to the Pakistanis.”

Rohrabacher readily admits that the alleged comment by his staff was “less than professional.” But, he is not willing to shy aware from the sentiment behind the comment: “If the comment was made, it was a passing comment. But, it is understandable. They just arrested the doctor who got Bin Laden. It must be understood in that context. It was a knee-jerk reaction from my staff who, like myself, were outraged when they learned of his arrest.”

Nor does Rohrabacher feel the need to further apologize for the comment: “Quite frankly, the Pakistani military and leaders that give safe-haven to the mass murderer of Americans should not expect to be treated with respect.” He also denies any connection between the hearing and his introduction of the Balochistan self-determination bill before Congress only a week later.

In his opinion, the ‘Stick it to the Pakistanis’ comment is enabling his opposition to misconstrue the larger motive for the hearing: “The main purpose of the hearing was to start a national dialogue on Balochistan. We wanted to raise human rights violations, discuss U.S. strategy in Pakistan, examine the issue of self-determination, and establish the facts on the ground. To suggest that the hearing was part of a strategy to advance any other goals is just conspiracy theory and nothing else.”

“Limiting the Debate”

Rohrabacher similarly rebuts claims that the hearing was intentionally brief.

In an earlier interview, Fair remarked: “Having been a part of hearings in the past, I was shocked by its brevity. Such hearings usually do not have a set time. But, this was the shortest hearing ever. And, look at the reason given – that the congressmen had to go and vote. Typically, in these sorts of hearings, the witnesses just sit and wait for them to vote and come back. The hearing does not just end.” She then openly asked “what were they trying to achieve by this?”

In response, Rohrabacher says that he was not trying to limit the debate: “To make such allegations that the hearing was intentionally cut short is just ridiculous. The hearing was not cut short. I would have preferred keeping it going for another half an hour. But, a lot had already been said and I did not want to keep everyone waiting around while we voted. Whoever suggested that is just naïve about how the process works.”

“Witness Bias”

Rohrabacher disagrees with criticism leveled against his witness list by his own witnesses, including Fair and Mr. Ali Dayan Hasan, the Pakistan Director of Human Rights Watch.

Both Fair and Hasan were critical of the inclusion of Ralph Peters as a witness. Fair went so far as to say: “If Congress remotely intended to try to use the hearing to put pressure on Pakistan for its human rights record, they should not have included someone (Ralph Peters) who calls for the halving of their country.”

Fair also questioned the decision to include Dr. M. Hossein Bor: “I don’t understand why they brought in the Iranian Baloch to testify. His remarks were not particularly relevant.” She was not alone in this criticism given that the hearing was supposed to be limited to Pakistan.

While the congressman acknowledges that not all the witnesses remained completely on-topic, Rohrabacher dismisses any criticism of his witness list: “The scope of the hearing was a broad discussion. … We wanted to open up the discussion and look at what American policy should be and how is the U.S. going to relate to this large group of people. We saw there was a lot of criticism over tweets that there was not a Baloch witness. We thought this was a legitimate issue so we invited one who was a Baloch.”

When pressed on the larger narrative on reshaping the region provided by Peters, Rohrabacher says, “We didn’t want to limit the discussion. I do not gag my witnesses. It was important to hear a lot of diverse views.”

“Driving a U.S.-Pakistan Wedge”

Rohrabacher aggressively defends himself against the allegation that his Subcommittee was trying to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Pakistan governments.

This is in reaction to Fair’s recent assessment that the hearing exacerbated the wedge between the U.S. and Pakistan: “It seemed that the people behind this hearing were pandering to diaspora politics just to tick off the Pakistanis at a time when the United States is trying to repair its tattered relationship with Pakistan.”

While Rohrabacher acknowledges that hearing probably “made some of our diplomats uncomfortable,” he counters by saying that it is Pakistan who is to blame: "I am not the one driving the wedge. The people arming people who kill Americans, proliferating nuclear weapons, and providing safe haven to terrorists are driving the wedge. My words are not the problem but rather the gross violations of trust and ultimate betrayal of the U.S. relationship by Pakistan is instead.‘’

He then explains that it is not his job to appease the Obama Administration and the State Department, who both favor stronger relations with Pakistan: “Making our diplomats comfortable should not be the goal of Congress. Sometimes, it’s our job to make waves. The bottom-line is that the State Department was comfortable when the Taliban provided a base of operation to kill thousands of Americans. They undercut me previously when I tried to create an anti-Taliban coalition in the 90’s. These are some of the same guys today.”

In any event, Rohrabacher notes, “I have not received any calls from Secretary Clinton or others at State complaining yet.”

“Self-determination as Ideology”

Rohrabacher is unabashed in confronting critics who argue that his hearing disregarded Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in contrivance to international law.

According to Rohrabacher, “if a majority of citizens of a particular region of a country want to be free, then they should have the right to be a free and independent people. I have supported this right throughout my career. Just like in Kashmir, this should be decided by plebiscite. That would bring both of these issues to a close. Further violence is totally avoidable.”

Based on this principle, Rohrabacher believes “now is a good time for the United States to assert its belief in the self-determination of the Baloch.” When asked whether he supports undermining Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity to do so, he says, “There are links in a society and when they are broken it is no longer up to the state but rather the people who have been subjected to human rights violations by the state.”

12

Re: Helping defeat Dana Rohrabacher in next election

I think we must realize that there are countless resolutions table every other day in US congress, so it has not any importance in my eyes. But it does help create urgency to tackle the Baluchistan problems this time by civilians not establishment.

Hope for the best !

13

Re: Helping defeat Dana Rohrabacher in next election

[quote]
According to Rohrabacher, "if a majority of citizens of a particular region of a country want to be free, then they should have the right to be a free and independent people.
[/quote]

These neo-conservative anti-Semitic Muslim-haters go for selective application of their arguments.
I wish the interviewer had asked him if this is what he really believes in then why doesn't he show similar outrage when it comes to Kashmir or Jharkhand in India?
Then there are Kurds wanting independence from Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. There are Uighur wanting independence from China. so on and so forth.

But that scum would only apply his logic on Pakistan.

14

Re: Helping defeat Dana Rohrabacher in next election

Yes, his bill has no importance. But it is worthwhile to make an example out of him, if we could make him lose his seat.