Here’s what I understand of it via google. For all those of you who have secret in-roads in the government, or have delusions that they do, please add.
Ok, so bill says, look we fork over this money to you, but it does not go to the military. It goes to civilian projects. Hospitals, schools, roads, etc.
In return, we get to supervise your nuclear program, and your civilian sector (aka Zardari) gets to call the shots for the army. In other words, Army runs according to civilian will, except that someone in Washington didn’t tell Kerry or Luger that Zardari doesn’t really listen to civilians but an imaginary pixie that visits him every night on his pillow.
Anything else I’m missing here? Please provide specifics. I would love to read a 10 page bill with complicated jargon, but I got a lot of other things that need reading, and I’m so lost on what’s going on.
It is about time Pakistan accepts the principle of civilian control of the military. Look at every advanced country in the world as well as the soon to be superpower China. Each of them accept this concept. While it may be a bitter pill to some Pakistanis to have foreign aid used to promote this concept, in the long run this is beneficial.
Pakistan cannot defend its army headquarters for gunmen who walk in through several checkpoints. How secure can its nukes be?
It is about time Pakistan accepts the principle of civilian control of the military. Look at every advanced country in the world as well as the soon to be superpower China. Each of them accept this concept. While it may be a bitter pill to some Pakistanis to have foreign aid used to promote this concept, in the long run this is beneficial.
Pakistan cannot defend its army headquarters for gunmen who walk in through several checkpoints. How secure can its nukes be?
by the same token American authorities failed miserably on 9/11! baat ka batangar na banao. Mishaps do happen. Despite their best efforts and technology not even countries like US and Israel can guarantee fool-proof security to their citizens. One can only minimise the threat of terrorist attacks. You can never eliminate it
Here's what I understand of it via google. For all those of you who have secret in-roads in the government, or have delusions that they do, please add.
Ok, so bill says, look we fork over this money to you, but it does not go to the military. It goes to civilian projects. Hospitals, schools, roads, etc.
In return, we get to supervise your nuclear program, and your civilian sector (aka Zardari) gets to call the shots for the army. In other words, Army runs according to civilian will, except that someone in Washington didn't tell Kerry or Luger that Zardari doesn't really listen to civilians but an imaginary pixie that visits him every night on his pillow.
Anything else I'm missing here? Please provide specifics. I would love to read a 10 page bill with complicated jargon, but I got a lot of other things that need reading, and I'm so lost on what's going on.
My problem is with the bold part. While most of us w'd welcome the US not supporting any future military take overs in Pakistan, I am personally not happy with the idea of outsiders controlling our nuclear programme. They should mind their own business and stay out of our internal matters. There is an effective command and control system already in place and chances of these weapons falling into the wrong hands are next to nil
I understand how you feel. Kerry and Lugar should have kept that part out. Give money, if needed, to help Pakistan secure them but any country is going to be upset with such a condition.
I understand how you feel. Kerry and Lugar should have kept that part out. Give money, if needed, to help Pakistan secure them but any country is going to be upset with such a condition.
Have you read the bill? Does it anywhere say that US will "supervise" Pakistan's nuclear program? If it doesn't say what is the point of this discussion.
The financial aid to Pakistan under this bill is in two parts .... one is for development and the second is for military assisstance.
There is no "pre-condition" for Pakistan ...... to recieve the military aid .... the secretary of state (US) has to give a "certificate" that Pakistan is following on the commitments it has made to the international community (if you want i can list them) .... once it is done the military component of the aid will be given .... if not ... then no aid. So this is the basic problem the military (and their cronies) has with this bill ... hope this helps
Govt to take up ‘controversial’ Kerry-Lugar clauses with US
The top civilian and military leadership of the country decided on Saturday that Pakistan would take up “controversial clauses” of the Kerry-Luger bill with the US government through diplomatic channels.
The decision came at a meeting between President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, army chief Gen Ashfaq Kayani, Foreign Minister Mehmood Qureshi and ISI chief Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha. A press statement said the leaders discussed the attack on the GHQ and implications of the Kerry-Lugar bill.
“The meeting discussed various aspects of the Kerry-Luger bill. There was unanimity of views … it was decided that the government would take up controversial clauses with the US. It was also decided that the final national response to the bill would be given on the conclusion of a debate in parliament,” said the statement by the prime minister’s media office.
Sources said the foreign minister briefed the meeting on the Kerry-Lugar bill. The participants were told that the government was planning to pass unanimous resolutions in both houses of parliament expressing reservations over the bill. These reservations would be conveyed to the US through diplomatic channels, said the sources. Kayani briefed the meeting on a scale operation in South Waziristan. The sources said the political leadership threw its support behind the army chief over the launch of the operation, the timing and scale of which would be determined by the armed forces. Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
I think there is a clause that gives the US free access to anyone they deem connected with the nuclear arsenal, weaponry, whatever, without the right of Pakistan to interfere on behalf of their protection or protection of national security.
I don't know if it was changed or not. But basically that means if they have reason to believe YOU have some connection with the nuclear facilties, they can pick you up and interrogate you on their own grounds, their own rules.
I can understand why a country would see that as stepping over sovereignty.
However, how much tax money is going to get wasted by corrupt ministers for their kids to go on European vacations and to get their daughters their 200th jora from Deepak Parwani??
I was just talking to a guppy today, telling him how at our uni there are a couple of kids on scholarship from Pakistan. All military kids. When I try to find out what they did to achieve these "merit" scholarships, I am not impressed with what I'm hearing. This is where American aid money went.
The basic premise is that this is another Pressler Amendment which requires the US government to verify a certain number of things and tells the Pakistani government what it can and can not do to get the aid.
I think there is a clause that gives the US free access to anyone they deem connected with the nuclear arsenal, weaponry, whatever, without the right of Pakistan to interfere on behalf of their protection or protection of national security.
I don't know if it was changed or not. But basically that means if they have reason to believe YOU have some connection with the nuclear facilties, they can pick you up and interrogate you on their own grounds, their own rules.
I can understand why a country would see that as stepping over sovereignty.
.
Again this is more of a myth then part of the actual bill. Funny how most people are "analyzing" about the bill without knowing what is written in it !!!!!
According to my principles, Pakistan should not get any aid from Americans, conditional or unconditional.
Aid from America will be a curse to Pakistan. Similar to aid from Saudi Arabia. Just like in Saudia's case, Pakistan will lose more from American friendship than we it will get.
Pakistan needs to forge stronger ties with Asian countries (you know, چپٹے لوگ).
And if we still want something out of American cow then instead of getting AID, we should be asking for greater market access to Pakistani goods.
How long can Pakistan live on aid alone?
the US effort is an attempt to minimize the possibility of jihadists seizing Pakistan's nukes.
How does this bill achieve this purpose?
[quote]
It is about time Pakistan accepts the principle of civilian control of the military. Look at every advanced country in the world as well as the soon to be superpower China. Each of them accept this concept.
[/quote]
Oh, so now American Zionists are teaching Pakistanis the "civilized" way by introducing this bill? You think you Zionists could control Pakistan army by this bill alone?
Frankly I think all the objection is only because the 'accountability' demanded will make it difficult for the powerful in Pakistan, whether military, government or politics, to divert the money for their own private purposes. They're just cloaking the objection with terms such as soverignty.
