By Steve Hynd
Call it a $2 billion attempted bribe - there's no other word that fits quite so well.
U.S. officials said the package is meant to address Pakistan's claims it lacks the wherewithal to go after terrorists and needs more support from the United States, people familiar with the situation said. The aid will help Pakistan buy helicopters, weapons systems and equipment to intercept communications.
The funding is part of the U.S. Foreign Military Financing program, which provides grants and loans to countries to buy U.S.-produced weapons and defense equipment, officials said. The package also includes counterinsurgency assistance and a program under which members of the Pakistani military can study at U.S. war colleges.
Although you could also call it military/industrial welfare - the bulk of this (taxpayer's) money will come back to America to buy shiny new military toys from U.S. arms companies.
It's unlikely the new package will actually go to pay for "wherewithal to go after terrorists" any more than past military aid to Pakistan has. A 2009 Belfer Center report outlined the truth of military aid to Pakistan:
The Pakistani military did not use most of the funds for the agreed objective of fighting terror. Pakistan bought much conventional military equipment. Examples include F-16s, aircraft-mounted armaments, anti-ship and antimissile defense systems, and an air defense radar system costing $200 million, despite the fact that the terrorists in the FATA have no air attack capability. Over half of the total funds�54.9 percent�were spent on fighter aircraft and weapons, over a quarter�26.62 percent�on support and other aircraft, and 10 percent on advanced weapons systems.
There is also clear evidence of corruption within the Pakistani army. The United States provided $1.5 million to reimburse Pakistan for damage to Navy vehicles which had not been used in combat, $15 million for the Pakistani army to build bunkers for which there is no evidence that they exist, and about $30 million for Pakistani road-building for which there is no such evidence either. Fifty-five million dollars was provided for helicopter maintenance for the entire national helicopter fleet which was not performed. Pakistan continued to receive around $80 million per month for military operations during ceasefire periods when troops were in their barracks. U.S. officials visiting the FATA found Pakistani Frontier Corps units poorly equipped, one reporting that he saw members of the Corps �standing ... in the snow in sandals,� with several wearing World War I�era pith helmets and carrying barely functional Kalashnikov rifles with �just 10 rounds of ammunition each�. At one point, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf himself complained that Pakistan�s helicopters needed more U.S. spare parts and support, despite reports from U.S. military officials that the United States had provided $8 million worth of Cobra parts over the previous six months. �The great majority� of the Coalition Support Funds given by the United States to reimburse Pakistan for counterterrorism operations was reportedly diverted to the Ministry of Finance, with only $300 million reaching the Army in the financial year ending 2008. This is evidence of corruption at the highest level. The result is that, after eight years of funding, many Pakistani troops in the FATA lack basic equipment such as sufficient ammunition, armored vests, and shoes. For many years, U.S. officials ignored clear evidence that the military was not using U.S. funds to further U.S. foreign policy objectives.
And in 2008 the Guardian reported that as much as 70% of U.S. aid to Pakistan had been mispent.
New Delhi is, rightly, worried that the U.S. is funding sophisticated military hardware which will be aimed at India.
Meanwhile, the UK's Telegraph reports today that the U.S. is strengthening the Pakistani military's hand against the civilian government:
Pakistan officials have demanded "democratic control" over funding set to be pledged at meeting of the Pakistan Development Forum in Islamabad next month. The World Bank said last week that the floods, which inundate an area the size of England, had cost the country $9.7 billion in direct damage and lost output.
The United Nations has pressed Pakistan to set up an independent body to oversee spending of the aid while the US wants a military-dominated government agency to take control of the funds.
Wajid Hasan, Pakistan's High Commissioner in London, said that control over reconstruction spending represented an opportunity to bolster the legitimacy of democratic government in the coup-prone Muslim state.
"The funds should be dispersed by parliament and the civilian government rather than the army," he said. "People are not giving the democratic government the credit it deserves for managing the relief effort."
But fears that the funds will be looted by the government of President Asif Ali Zardari has bolstered the case for Pakistan's National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA), headed by a former general to take the lead role.
Mark Ward, a leading official from America's Agency for International Development, said the NDMA had demonstrated a surefooted competence that had eluded other organisations responding to the flood. "The NDMA knows what it wants to do," he said. "I sure hope that they leave the NDMA in a major role."
I suppose if its a choice between wasting money on civilian corruption or wasting money on military corruption that also potentially destabilizes the region, I'd pick the former. But U.S. officials during the last three administrations have habitually picked the military over the civilian government when it comes to dealing with Pakistan. And by "dealing" I mean "attempting to bribe".
Maybe that's why Pakistan's civilian Foreign Minister Mahmood Qureshi took himself to Harvard to try pandering to U.S. hawks yesterday:
In some of Pakistan's strongest statements on Iran's controversial nuclear program, Shah Mahmood Qureshi said yesterday that he wanted to avoid "another major crisis in the region".
"I don't think they have a justification to go nuclear. Who's threatening Iran? I don't see any immediate threat to Iran," Mr Qureshi said during an address at Harvard University.
The hypocrisy of this statement from a senior official from a nuclear-armed nation that's utterly and institutionally paranoid about India on a single border - at the same time as the U.S. has major troop presences on two of Iran's borders - should be obvious to all. But Qureshi likely figures he needs to make some gestures to American national security worries if his country is to stay titularly out of military hands and this gesture came cheap.
Update: Abu Muqawama poses the central question: what to do about Pakistan's two-faced "alliance", very clearly. There are some thought-provoking comments, including a link to this from Pundita on trying to play poker against hagglers.
No comments:
Post a Comment