Re: U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan
also u.s. aid has very little impact on pak economy. so musharraf wont be losing sleep.
You're wrong. The US sanctions can cripple Pakistani economy in 2 months. Remember 1998/99 after nuke tests?
Re: U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan
but will the congress actually do the 'cut n chop' on the funding. oh my lord! i can almost hear the 'we must assist our ally in the war on terror' ranting just thinking about it.
Re: U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan
You're wrong. The US sanctions can cripple Pakistani economy in 2 months. Remember 1998/99 after nuke tests?
this is not 1998 when pak's foreign reserves were less than $1bn. pakistan's foreign reserves currently are around $16.5 bn. u.s. aid, which amounts to $500mn, makes no impact on pak's fx flows. rest of the money received from the u.s. is for the cost of operation in the tribal areas. pak can stop operations there if u.s. does not pay for it. this would suit musharraf just fine.
Re: U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan
^^Your math of 500 million $$ doesn't add up. According to congressional records the US gave Pakistan over 10 billion dollars in last 6 years. Its not aid that matter so much, its the trade concessions that were given to Pakistan. If the US put sanctions on junta, its aid+trade concessions and no loans from IMF and WB.
As for tribal areas, if Pakistan doesn't work with the US, the American will simply bomb the area. How is Pakistan going to stop that? Remember they're right next door in Afghanistan.
Re: U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan
aid to pak? more like aid to mushy and co. since when it was about giving aid to pak. USA been giving aid to mushy. that is why it was linked to more dead bodies be it terrorists or innocent civilians.
Re: U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan
this is from the website of u.s. state department. under current aid package, pak gets $600mn per year:
“…In 2003, President Bush announced that the United States would provide Pakistan with $3 billion in economic and military aid over 5 years. This assistance package commenced during FY 2005…”
as i said earlier, rest of money is for tribal opertions which is a bargain for the u.s. considering how much u.s. operation is costing in afghanistan even though u.s. has about 16,000 troops over there. as for u.s. bombing tribal areas, that would be fine by musharraf because that will stop him from doing america’s dirty work. only thing pak can do to stop u.s. is to decalre war against the u.s. how many of us are up for that?
Re: U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan
Is not just the direct aid, the multinationals, the investors, the importers from west, all look at how US thinks of a particular country. All this translates into better economy.
Re: U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan
Is not just the direct aid, the multinationals, the investors, the importers from west, all look at how US thinks of a particular country. All this translates into better economy.
most of fdi to pak is coming from outside the u.s. mid-east is a big driver of investment in pak. plus to stop u.s. companies from investing in pak, u.s. will have to impose sanctions iranian style which btw would make indians very happy. u.s. can obviously impose full fledged sanctions on pak but that would be a highly drastic step considering such punitive sanctions were not imposed even after first musharraf coup.
overall, the aid cutback is grandstanding by some u.s. politicians. u.s. was well aware in advance of what musharraf was going to do. u.s. like musharraf does not want the supreme court to relase hard core jehadis. sanctions talk is to satisfy gullible pakistanis.
Re: U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan
I doubt if anyone really beleives sanctions will be imposed, us may choose to grill Mush for more by threats of sanctions.
However, as the us solves soem of its problems elsewhere, it will eventually turn its attention to nooks in Pakistan. Sanctions will be applied at tha time. While persians did have russia and EU to help them during sanctions, Pakis will find no one to stand for them.
And spare me the talk of Supreme court and releasing Js. The judges who released them have been sworn in under new PCO.
Re: U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan
overall, the aid cutback is grandstanding by some u.s. politicians. u.s. was well aware in advance of what musharraf was going to do. u.s. like musharraf does not want the supreme court to relase hard core jehadis. sanctions talk is to satisfy gullible pakistanis.
You may think its grandstanding, but facts speaks for themselves. Pakistan will be on verge of bankruptcy in no time if the US puts sanctions on Pakistan. And the US never does anything alone. If the US put sanctions on the junta, so will EU and Japan...and we know most of Pakistan's trade is with EU, the US and Japan. As for Iran, they can survive b/c they have oil, unlike Pakistan.
Musharraf warned: hold elections and quit as army chief
Looks like the screws are being tightened on the dictator.
Musharraf warned: hold elections and quit as army chief
The US and Britain are today expected to demand that Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, honour pledges to hold elections in the next two months and step down as the army chief, or face a cut in western support.The diplomatic showdown will come in the form of a meeting in Islamabad between the Pakistani leader and a group of ambassadors, two days after he declared emergency rule - and three days after giving assurances to the prime minister, Gordon Brown, and the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, that he would stick to an election deadline in mid-January, and step down as head of the country’s army.
Last night Pakistan’s prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, called those promises into question when he said the government had not decided when to hold the elections and warned they could be delayed by up to a year. Wielding his new powers with an iron fist yesterday, Gen Musharraf rounded up hundreds of opposition and human rights activists and introduced tight media regulations. Mr Aziz’s statement directly contradicted personal assurances Gen Musharraf apparently gave to Mr Brown and Ms Rice on the eve of the emergency declaration.The pledge to the prime minister was made on Friday, when Mr Brown telephoned Mr Musharraf and expressed concern over reports that an emergency decree was being planned.
“He [Mr Brown] said we had heard he was considering this and we thought it was a bad idea,” a British official said.
Downing Street and the Foreign Office denied claims from Islamabad yesterday that Britain had, in fact, sanctioned Gen Musharraf’s declaration.
A Musharraf aide told the Guardian that the Pakistani president had “satisfied” objections raised by Mr Brown during the conversation. “There was pressure from the US and Britain in the beginning. But later on, when the government gave them the detail that elections will be held on time, and the president will take off his uniform, they did not have any objections,” the official said, on condition of anonymity. A Foreign Office official insisted “no consent was implied or given”.
In his address to the nation on Saturday night Gen Musharraf said the step was necessary to combat growing Islamist extremism that has seen a succession of suicide bombings and a battle in the previously peaceful northern area of Swat.
But yesterday his police turned their batons on political opponents and human rights critics from a wide spectrum of society - although notably not from Benazir Bhutto’s People’s party. Ms Bhutto, who has been edging towards a power-sharing deal with Gen Musharraf for months, condemned emergency rule but did not call her supporters on to the streets.
In Lahore police armed with assault rifles raided the offices of the national human rights commission.
Police seized camera equipment belonging to journalists. The ousted chief justice, Muhammad Iftikhar Chaudhry, was trapped behind a cordon of police at his Islamabad house.
The leader of the lawyer’s movement, Aitzaz Ahsan, was held incommunicado at Adiala Jail near Rawalpindi. Tammy Haq, a colleague who attempted to visit him, said she feared he was being tortured. “I’ve seen martial law before, my brother was in jail, and this is exactly the same,” she said.
Mr Aziz said the former cricketer Imran Khan and retired intelligence chief Hamid Gul were among 500 people being held in preventative detention. Private TV channels remained off air and senior journalists said they feared arrest. The only news coverage came through the state TV channel, which broadcast a report into the lack of press freedom in India.
The British and US reaction has so far been cautious. It has fallen short of condemnation. More severe measures, as well as a reassessment of western aid to the Musharraf government will hinge on today’s critical meeting.
“What we will make very clear is that the government must keep to the commitment to hold elections on time, the commitment to take off the uniform, the commitment to a free press, the commitment to reach out other parties, and the commitment to release political prisoners,” a senior British official said. “How they respond to that will determine how our reaction thereafter.”
Ms Rice, speaking to journalists in Jerusalem, said yesterday the US would “review” aid to Pakistan, which has totalled $11bn (£5.5bn) since 2001.
British officials said they would reassess aid in coordination with the US.
In Lahore a human rights campaigner, Asma Jahangir, sent an email from home where she has been placed under detention for 90 days. “Those he has arrested are progressive, secular minded people while the terrorists are offered negotiations and ceasefires,” she wrote.
Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, president of the ruling PML-Q party, said the decision to impose emergency rule was triggered by fears that the supreme court would rule against Gen Musharraf’s recent re-election in a legal appeal. A friendly judge passed the information to the government last Wednesday. “He said the verdict may be unanimous. So we had no choice,” he told the Guardian. “The debate was whether to impose emergency before or after [the court ruling].”
Asked how long the emergency measures would be in place Mr Aziz said: “As long as it is necessary.”
Guardian newspaper.
Re: U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan
http://nation.com.pk/daily/nov-2007/5/index13.php
US must change policy towards Pakistan: Biden
SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
WASHINGTON - Joseph Biden, a Democratic presidential candidate, says President Pervez Musharraf’s declaration of emergency requires Washington “to move from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy,” as Bush administration officials expressed frustration and dismay over the Pakistani leader’s action.
In interviews with news media, Biden, who is chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called for building “a new relationship with the Pakistani people, with more non-military aid, sustained over a long period of time, so that the moderate majority in Pakistan has a chance to succeed.” Citing analysts, The Washington Post in a front-page dispatch said Gen Musharraf’s decision to suspend the constitution Saturday “poses a sharp setback for US efforts to push Pakistan toward democracy, and it calls into question President Bush’s unstinting support for Musharraf despite the general’s growing unpopularity and inability to counter hard-line militants.”
The Washington-datelined dispatch said, “The United States now finds itself with few good options and dwindling power to influence events in the nuclear-armed state, particularly because experts believe Musharraf’s actions may have ensured his demise as a national leader, “The Bush administration has given Pakistan $10 billion in aid since 2001 - much of it military assistance-and US officials had warned that Congress may balk at continuing aid if emergency powers were invoked, . But some analysts cautioned that if the United States is perceived as withdrawing support for Musharraf, it may increase the risk of a civil war and the shattering of Pakistan.”
Rice, who called Musharraf on Friday and warned him against taking this step, said Saturday that Musharraf’s actions are “highly regrettable,” telling reporters travelling with her that “the United States has made clear it does not support extra-constitutional measures, because those measures would take Pakistan away from the path of democracy and civilian rule.” US officials, according to The Post, were taken aback by Musharraf’s move but quickly shifted from expressions of dismay to resignation, insisting that any “extra-constitutional measures” be brief. There was no suggestion of immediate cuts in aid, and Rice indicated that she had told Musharraf that, even if he imposed emergency rule, he nonetheless should move quickly to elections, it said.
The Bush administration must now start “from the premise that he’s gone, whether the people chuck him out or the military chucks him out,” Xenia Dormandy, who until last year was the National Security Council’s director for South Asia, was quoted as saying. “I would be very surprised if he lasts even six months.” Dormandy faulted the Bush administration for sending “mixed messages” to Musharraf in recent months, allowing him to believe he could weather the fallout from a declaration of emergency powers.
She emphasized the State Department’s statement Saturday that the United States stands “with the people of Pakistan in supporting a democratic process and in countering violent extremism,” and noted that it did not mention support for Musharraf.
“The train is derailed and off the tracks,” Stephen Cohen, author of “The Idea of Pakistan,” was quoted as saying in The Post. “We have to give ourselves a share of the responsibility for this. We placed all of our chips on Musharraf.” At this point, Cohen added: “I don’t think there is anything we can do. We are not big players in this anymore.” Stating that that Mushaarraf’s credentials in promoting democracy were less than impressive, The Post said his record on even on countering terrorism has proven to be a disappointment.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman called Musharraf’s declaration “unfortunate” but said “close coordination with the Pakistani military on operations continues.”
“The coup in Pakistan is a body blow to the administration’s efforts to arrange a shotgun marriage between Musharraf and (Benazir) Bhutto that would have given the appearance of a broadening of Pakistani politics,” said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst and National Security Council staff member now at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center. “Instead of a more democratic Pakistan, we will have a more authoritarian Pakistan. Instead of a more stable Pakistan fighting Al-Qaeda, we will have a military regime fighting for its survival.”
Teresita Schaffer, an expert on Pakistan at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, called General Musharraf’s action “a big embarrassment” for the administration, according to The New York Times. But she said there was not much the United States could do. “There’s going to be a lot of visible wringing of hands, and urging Musharraf to declare his intentions,” she said. “But I don’t really see any alternative to continuing to work with him. They can’t just decide they’re going to blow off the whole country of Pakistan, because it sits right next to Afghanistan, where there are some 26,000 US and NATO troops.” Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the current situation could easily plunge Pakistan into chaos, leading to an increase in violence by Islamic fundamentalists or provoking demonstrations by opposition political parties. “You could have chaos in the street, or a situation where it would be suicidal for Ms. Bhutto to try to participate in the process,” he said, adding, “Either of those scenarios puts the US in a very difficult position.” Rice was in Istanbul, attending an international conference on Iraq when her attention was shifted to the upheaval in Pakistan. One adviser traveling with Rice saw a silver lining in the rapid turn of events. “Thank heavens for small favours,” the official was quoted as saying in The Post. Compared to Pakistan, “Iraq looks pretty good,” he said.
Re: U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan
Of course there will be “strong” protests and some cosmetic moves to placate the people opposed to the Musharraf Emergency move, but actual material support will remain the same. It is key to note that high ranking US Admiral Fallon was still in Pakistan when the Emergency was accounced.
Re: U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan
Ms Rice, speaking to journalists in Jerusalem, said yesterday the US would “review” aid to Pakistan, which has totalled $11bn (£5.5bn) since 2001.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/S…rc=rss&feed=12
Musharraf snubbed Brown and Rice on emergency rule
Pakistan First. :jhanda:
Musharraf snubbed Brown and Rice on emergency rule
President Pervez Musharraf gave a firm commitment to Gordon Brown and Condoleezza Rice that he would hold elections on schedule by January just before imposing a state of emergency, it emerged yesterday. But hours later his government suggested he might renege on that pledge. British and US efforts to clarify the situation were ignored by the Pakistan government at the weekend. Calls to Islamabad by the foreign secretary, David Miliband, were not answered, and Ms Rice, the US secretary of state, reportedly fared no better. The showdown has instead been put off until today’s scheduled meeting between the Pakistani leader and western ambassadors in Islamabad. The breakdown in communications was partly a result of chaos in Pakistan but it also reflects the limits to US and British influence in a volatile part of the world. London, in particular, relies on the Pakistani government for help in the battle against the Taliban, including lines of supply to British troops in Afghanistan through northern Pakistan, and surveillance of the flow of would-be suicide bombers between the two countries.
The US is similarly caught between the desire to show muscular support for democracy and fear of destabilising further a nuclear state already under pressure from religious extremists. Ms Rice threatened yesterday to review US aid to Pakistan, which amounts to about $11bn (£5.27bn) since September 11 2001 - most of it military. **But she later added that she would be “very surprised” if cooperation on counterterrorism was affected. Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said Pakistan remained an important ally in the “war on terror”. “Close coordination with the Pakistani military on operations continues.” **British economic influence is smaller. Civilian aid has totalled £480m over the past three years, and the government appeared even more reluctant than the US to use it as a stick. The Foreign Office said it would “consider the implications for our development and other programmes in Pakistan”. British officials said they would coordinate with their US counterparts and make a decision after today’s scheduled meeting between General Musharraf and western ambassadors.
Gen Musharraf appears to have calculated that the threat of western ire was less immediate than the political challenge to his authority within the country. The head of the US Central Command, Admiral William Fallon, was in Pakistan on Friday, reportedly to warn him not to impose the emergency, but the declaration was made while the admiral was still in town. Ms Rice said she told Mr Musharraf that “even if something happens, we would expect the democratic elections to take place”. British officials have been more coy over the extent of their prior knowledge of Saturday’s events, but it is clear the prime minister conveyed a similar message to the Pakistani president in their telephone conversation on Friday, which came two days after rumours began to circulate that Gen Musharraf was on the brink of a crackdown. A Foreign Office official said Mr Brown urged Mr Musharraf not to resort to emergency rule. The response from Washington and London to the declaration was muted, with Britain expressing “concern” and the US “disappointment”. Stephen Cohen, of the Brookings Institution thinktank, and the author of a new book, The Idea of Pakistan,said: “The American and British governments have dug such a big hole for themselves, they have no choice but to support Musharraf in whatever he does.”
Re: U.S. Is Likely to Continue Aid to Pakistan
Pakistan has recieved over $1.7 Billion in Aid from the U.S. in 2007 alone.
And since the Aid has been flowing since 2001 it hasn't been limited to just military funding. The earthquake relief itself totaled over $500 million in response to the devastating quake of 2005.
Re: Musharraf snubbed Brown and Rice on emergency rule
It'll be very interesting to see how things shape up in the light of 'external pressures'. I do hope the imposed emergency's lifted.
Re: Musharraf snubbed Brown and Rice on emergency rule
**“The American and British governments have dug such a big hole for themselves, they have no choice but to support Musharraf in whatever he does.”
**so they have created another monster thats out of their control now and ppl of pakistan will have to suffer in return. all the money/aid coming into pakistan is being distributed amongst the already filthy rich and powerful. common person is still struggling to maintain a decent living.
Re: Musharraf snubbed Brown and Rice on emergency rule
No, its Mushrraf 1st even in that means Pakistan falls apart.
Re: Musharraf snubbed Brown and Rice on emergency rule
and how is that going to help pak? he is arresting lawyers, judges, supporters and leaders of political parties. how is all this going to help pakistan’s situation? to put 1000s of ppl in jails is not going to ease the tension and won’t help any1s cause. i thought he was to fight terrorism. how many of the ppl beaten and arrested by the police so far are terrorists? if they are not then they will become eventually due to this shameless and barbaric behavior of the government.