Hi,

WASHINGTON: The US House of Representatives on Thursday agreed to triple American non-military aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion per year in a
gesture marked by

doubts and recrimination about the bonafides of Washington’s suspect ally.

There was nothing full-throated about the vote on the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement (PEACE) Act 2009 which passed 234-185, reflecting the divisions among US lawmakers about how the administration should handle Pakistan. Most Representatives who opposed the bill did so because it was laden with tight conditions and caveats for disbursal of aid; not because they were opposed to aid.

But those who voted for the increase that will add up to $7.5 billion through fiscal 2013 did so by packing the bill with conditions. To begin with, the bill requires that the vast majority of such assistance be focused on critical counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism efforts; it cannot be used to purchase offensive weapons systems for the Pakistani army. In addition, the bill requires that all military assistance flow through the democratically elected Government of Pakistan.

The legislation includes other accountability measures for military assistance, including a requirement that the Government of Pakistan has demonstrated a sustained commitment to combating terrorist groups and has made progress towards that end.

"We are simply asking Pakistan to follow through with the commitments it has already made," Howard Berman, the Democratic chairman of the House sub-committee that oversees South Asia, who led the effort to monitor Pakistan, said. "And in the process, we lay down an important marker that Congress will no longer provide a blank check."

But some Republican lawmakers bristled at the conditions. "Our Democratic colleagues decided to load this bill up with ill-conceived provisions to micro-manage US security assistance to Pakistan," fumed Dan Burton, the top Republican on the sub-committee. “This is not just a debate between (US lawmakers), this is about war and peace and the survivability of Pakistan as an independent nation. It's about winning or losing the war in Afghanistan."

The story is not over yet. The House bill will not have to be reconciled with the Senate version of a similar bill in a "conference" process that could prove contentious. The Senate bill, piloted by John Kerry and Richard Lugar, is also less stringent on conditions to be imposed on Pakistan, believing that straitjacketing the administration will not help the fight against extremism.

Peace
-=SF_13=-

Good money after bad IMHO

This is a huge mistake.

Guys, I think the policy makers in Washington know a bit more than the average John Smith on the street and base such decisions on actual national defense strategies.

You do want to keep a nuclear country in your control and as terrorist free as possible. Good move.

Originally Posted by Lunatik

Guys, I think the policy makers in Washington know a bit more than the average John Smith on the street and base such decisions on actual national defense strategies.

You do want to keep a nuclear country in your control and as terrorist free as possible. Good move.

Hi,

Hope so .. Lets hope so , Because at times i feel the people in the parliament don't seems to be even as good as average John Smith ..

You seem to have a lot of faith in them .. I wish i had the kind of faith you have ... but i could never get myself to trust them .. every time i try they do something very stupid

Disclaimer : general ranting

Originally Posted by Lunatik

You do want to keep a nuclear country in your control and as terrorist free as possible. Good move.

Yeah cause Pakistan has been so forth coming and pro-active thus far.

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

aha, might be a wrong investment from the perspective of US civilian. But I do know this makes China feel uncomportable since it can turn Pakistan goverment into US side as long as carrying out this policy with more and more $$$$

Yeah. Pakistan seems to be playing a very nice 'balance game' between the US and China.

China couldn't care less about Islamic extremism (at least not while the Uyghurs count only a few million) and their main motivation is having an ally to the west of India as a destabilizing factor, whereas the US is concerned about the Greater Middle East project and keeping a nuclear Muslim country in check is of top priority, especially while Iranian question remains unsolved and the balance of power can tip over to either Shia and Sunni hands in a matter of hours.

All in all, I fully support the democratization and secularization process of our Pakistani friends. They should walk along Turkey's path.

Originally Posted by Lunatik

Yeah. Pakistan seems to be playing a very nice 'balance game' between the US and China.

China couldn't care less about Islamic extremism (at least not while the Uyghurs count only a few million) and their main motivation is having an ally to the west of India as a destabilizing factor, whereas the US is concerned about the Greater Middle East project and keeping a nuclear Muslim country in check is of top priority, especially while Iranian question remains unsolved and the balance of power can tip over to either Shia and Sunni hands in a matter of hours.

All in all, I fully support the democratization and secularization process of our Pakistani friends. They should walk along Turkey's path.

Exactly. The main factor that can ally China and Pakistan is the underlying threats from U.S-supported India. If this threaths is reduced in some way, just like What U.S is doing now, being friendly with Pakistan, this factor might disppear....

I guess ,the best choice for China is to intervene the mid east issue to show its important role of dealing with terrorists and keeping stabillity.