Custom Search

Text of the Final Version of the Kerry-Lugar Bill: Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009

Posted on October 7, 2009
Filed Under >Adil Najam, Economy & Development, Foreign Relations
97 Comments
Total Views: 46577

Share

Adil Najam

Important: The Bill below is now the most recent version – S.1707 of the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, as passed by Both House and Senate. It was passed by the Senate on Sep. 24, 2009 and the House on Sep. 30, 2009. As indicated in the earlier version of this post, we had earlier posted the original Senate Bill – S 962 ES, as passed the Senate June 24, 2009.

This version reflects the changes made in the House and Senate as the Bill made its way through the process. The basic framework is the same but important changes were made in the language in various places. A good faith effort has been made to reproduce what we believe is the latest version in its complete form, as a public service.



Original introduction to post: One thing seems clear from the discussion on yesterday’s post on the Kerry-Lugar Bill – formally the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act, 2009. Very few of those who are arguing for or against the Bill seem to have actually read it. In the spirit of seeking a healthier discussion, maybe we should all take Hilary Clinton’s advice and do exactly that.

I reproduce below the full, final and official version of the Bill, as passed and recorded by the U.S. Senate. Lets focus on what it does actually say. (Maybe, at least for now, we should spare ourselves the agony of determining the “hidden” meaning and concentrate instead on what the Bill actually does say.)

What parts of the Bill, as written, are useful, or not, to whom, and how. For those who oppose it, exactly what clauses of the Bill’s text are you most disturbed by, and why? For those who support it, exactly what parts do you think hold actual promise, and why? And how might you respond to each other’s arguments – again, about what the Bill actually says.
S.1707

One Hundred Eleventh Congress
of the
United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine

An Act

To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to promote an enhanced strategic partnership with Pakistan and its people, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009′.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Findings.
Sec. 4. Statement of principles.

TITLE I–DEMOCRATIC, ECONOMIC, AND DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FOR PAKISTAN

Sec. 101. Authorization of assistance.
Sec. 102. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 103. Auditing.

TITLE II–SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR PAKISTAN

Sec. 201. Purposes of assistance.
Sec. 202. Authorization of assistance.
Sec. 203. Limitations on certain assistance.
Sec. 204. Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund.
Sec. 205. Requirements for civilian control of certain assistance.

TITLE III–STRATEGY, ACCOUNTABILITY, MONITORING, AND OTHER PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Strategy Reports.
Sec. 302. Monitoring Reports.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the term `appropriate congressional committees’ means the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.

(2) COUNTERINSURGENCY- The term `counterinsurgency’ means efforts to defeat organized movements that seek to overthrow the duly constituted Governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan through violent means.

(3) COUNTERTERRORISM- The term `counterterrorism’ means efforts to combat al Qaeda and other foreign terrorist organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189), or other individuals and entities engaged in terrorist activity or support for such activity.

(4) FATA- The term `FATA’ means the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan.

(5) FRONTIER CRIMES REGULATION- The term `Frontier Crimes Regulation’ means the Frontier Crimes Regulation, codified under British law in 1901, and applicable to the FATA.

(6) IMPACT EVALUATION RESEARCH- The term `impact evaluation research’ means the application of research methods and statistical analysis to measure the extent to which change in a population-based outcome can be attributed to program intervention instead of other environmental factors.

(7) MAJOR DEFENSE EQUIPMENT- The term `major defense equipment’ has the meaning given the term in section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2794(6)).

(8) NWFP- The term `NWFP’ means the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, which has Peshawar as its provincial capital.

(9) OPERATIONS RESEARCH- The term `operations research’ means the application of social science research methods, statistical analysis, and other appropriate scientific methods to judge, compare, and improve policies and program outcomes, from the earliest stages of defining and designing programs through their development and implementation, with the objective of the rapid dissemination of conclusions and concrete impact on programming.

(10) SECURITY FORCES OF PAKISTAN- The term `security forces of Pakistan’ means the military and intelligence services of the Government of Pakistan, including the Armed Forces, Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, Intelligence Bureau, police forces, levies, Frontier Corps, and Frontier Constabulary.

(11) SECURITY-RELATED ASSISTANCE- The term `security-related assistance’–

(A) means–

(i) grant assistance to carry out section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763); and
(ii) assistance under chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2311 et. seq); but

(B) does not include–

(i) assistance authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law that is funded from accounts within budget function 050 (National Defense); and
(ii) amounts appropriated or otherwise available to the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund established under the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32).

SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The people of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the United States share a long history of friendship and comity, and the interests of both nations are well-served by strengthening and deepening this friendship.

(2) Since 2001, the United States has contributed more than $15,000,000,000 to Pakistan, of which more than $10,000,000,000 has been security-related assistance and direct payments.

(3) With the free and fair election of February 18, 2008, Pakistan returned to civilian rule, reversing years of political tension and mounting popular concern over military rule and Pakistan’s own democratic reform and political development.

(4) Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally of the United States and has been a valuable partner in the battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban, but much more remains to be accomplished by both nations.

(5) The struggle against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and affiliated terrorist groups has led to the deaths of several thousand Pakistani civilians and members of the security forces of Pakistan over the past seven years.

(6) Despite killing or capturing hundreds of al Qaeda operatives and other terrorists–including major al Qaeda leaders, such as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and Abu Faraj al-Libi–the FATA, parts of the NWFP, Quetta in Balochistan, and Muridke in Punjab remain a sanctuary for al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, the Terikh-e Taliban and affiliated groups from which these groups organize terrorist actions against Pakistan and other countries.

(7) The security forces of Pakistan have struggled to contain a Taliban-backed insurgency, recently taking direct action against those who threaten Pakistan’s security and stability, including military operations in the FATA and the NWFP.

(8) On March 27, 2009, President Obama noted, `Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan.’.

(9) According to a Government Accountability Office report (GAO-08-622), `since 2003, the [A]dministration’s national security strategies and Congress have recognized that a comprehensive plan that includes all elements of national power–diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic, and law enforcement support–was needed to address the terrorist threat emanating from the FATA’ and that such a strategy was also mandated by section 7102(b)(3) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 22 U.S.C. 2656f note) and section 2042(b)(2) of the Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53; 22 U.S.C. 2375 note).

(10) During 2008 and 2009, the people of Pakistan have been especially hard hit by rising food and commodity prices and severe energy shortages, with 2/3 of the population living on less than $2 a day and 1/5 of the population living below the poverty line according to the United Nations Development Program.

(11) Economic growth is a fundamental foundation for human security and national stability in Pakistan, a country with more than 175,000,000 people, an annual population growth rate of two percent, and a ranking of 136 out of 177 countries in the United Nations Human Development Index.

(12) The 2009 Pakistani military offensive in the NWFP and the FATA displaced millions of residents in one of the gravest humanitarian crises Pakistan has faced, and despite the heroic efforts of Pakistanis to respond to the needs of the displaced millions and facilitate the return of many, it has highlighted the need for Pakistan to develop an effective national counterinsurgency strategy.

SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES.

Congress declares that the relationship between the United States and Pakistan should be based on the following principles:

(1) Pakistan is a critical friend and ally to the United States, both in times of strife and in times of peace, and the two countries share many common goals, including combating terrorism and violent radicalism, solidifying democracy and rule of law in Pakistan, and promoting the social and economic development of Pakistan.

(2) United States assistance to Pakistan is intended to supplement, not supplant, Pakistan’s own efforts in building a stable, secure, and prosperous Pakistan.

(3) The United States requires a balanced, integrated, countrywide strategy for Pakistan that provides assistance throughout the country and does not disproportionately focus on security-related assistance or one particular area or province.

(4) The United States supports Pakistan’s struggle against extremist elements and recognizes the profound sacrifice made by Pakistan in the fight against terrorism, including the loss of more than 1,900 soldiers and police since 2001 in combat with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremist and terrorist groups.

(5) The United States intends to work with the Government of Pakistan–

(A) to build mutual trust and confidence by actively and consistently pursuing a sustained, long-term, multifaceted relationship between the two countries, devoted to strengthening the mutual security, stability, and prosperity of both countries;

(B) to support the people of Pakistan and their democratic government in their efforts to consolidate democracy, including strengthening Pakistan’s parliament, helping Pakistan reestablish an independent and transparent judicial system, and working to extend the rule of law in all areas in Pakistan;

(C) to promote sustainable long-term development and infrastructure projects, including in healthcare, education, water management, and energy programs, in all areas of Pakistan, that are sustained and supported by each successive democratic government in Pakistan;

(D) to ensure that all the people of Pakistan, including those living in areas governed by the Frontier Crimes Regulation, have access to public, modernized education and vocational training to enable them to provide for themselves, for their families, and for a more prosperous future for their children;

(E) to support the strengthening of core curricula and the quality of schools across Pakistan, including madrassas, in order to improve the prospects for Pakistani children’s futures and eliminate incitements to violence and intolerance;

(F) to encourage and promote public-private partnerships in Pakistan in order to bolster ongoing development efforts and strengthen economic prospects, especially with respect to opportunities to build civic responsibility and professional skills of the people of Pakistan, including support for institutions of higher learning with international accreditation;

(G) to expand people-to-people engagement between the two countries, through increased educational, technical, and cultural exchanges and other methods;

(H) to encourage the development of local analytical capacity to measure program effectiveness and progress on an integrated basis, especially across the areas of United States assistance and payments to Pakistan, and increase accountability for how such assistance and payments are being spent;

(I) to assist Pakistan’s efforts to improve counterterrorism financing and anti-money laundering regulatory structure in order to achieve international standards and encourage Pakistan to apply for `Financial Action Task Force’ observer status and adhere to the United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism;

(J) to strengthen Pakistan’s counterinsurgency and counterterrorism strategy to help prevent any territory of Pakistan from being used as a base or conduit for terrorist attacks in Pakistan or elsewhere;

(K) to strengthen Pakistan’s efforts to develop strong and effective law enforcement and national defense forces under civilian leadership;

(L) to achieve full cooperation in matters of counter-proliferation of nuclear materials and related networks;

(M) to strengthen Pakistan’s efforts to gain control of its under-governed areas and address the threat posed by any person or group that conducts violence, sabotage, or other terrorist activities in Pakistan or its neighboring countries; and

(N) to explore means to consult with and utilize the relevant expertise and skills of the Pakistani-American community.

TITLE I–DEMOCRATIC, ECONOMIC, AND DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FOR PAKISTAN

SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF ASSISTANCE.

(a) In General- The President is authorized to provide assistance to Pakistan–

(1) to support the consolidation of democratic institutions;

(2) to support the expansion of rule of law, build the capacity of government institutions, and promote respect for internationally-recognized human rights;

(3) to promote economic freedoms and sustainable economic development;

(4) to support investment in people, including those displaced in on-going counterinsurgency operations; and

(5) to strengthen public diplomacy.

(b) Activities Supported- Activities that may be supported by assistance under subsection (a) include the following:

(1) To support democratic institutions in Pakistan in order to strengthen civilian rule and long-term stability, including assistance such as–

(A) support for efforts to strengthen Pakistan’s institutions, including the capacity of the National Parliament of Pakistan, such as enhancing the capacity of committees to oversee government activities, including national security issues, enhancing the ability of members of parliament to respond to constituents, and supporting of parliamentary leadership;

(B) support for voter education and civil society training as well as appropriate support for political party capacity building and responsiveness to the needs of all the people of Pakistan; and

(C) support for strengthening the capacity of the civilian Government of Pakistan to carry out its responsibilities at the national, provincial, and local levels.

(2) To support Pakistan’s efforts to expand rule of law, build the capacity, transparency, and trust in government institutions, and promote internationally recognized human rights, including assistance such as–

(A) supporting the establishment of frameworks that promote government transparency and criminalize corruption in both the government and private sector;

(B) support for police professionalization, including training regarding use of force, human rights, and community policing;

(C) support for independent, efficient, and effective judicial and criminal justice systems, such as case management, training, and efforts to enhance the rule of law to all areas in Pakistan;

(D) support for the implementation of legal and political reforms in the FATA;

(E) support to counter the narcotics trade;

(F) support for internationally recognized human rights, including strengthening civil society and nongovernmental organizations working in the area of internationally recognized human rights, as well as organizations that focus on protection of women and girls, promotion of freedom of religion and religious tolerance, and protection of ethnic or religious minorities; and

(G) support for promotion of a responsible, capable, and independent media.

(3) To support economic freedom and economic development in Pakistan, including–

(A) programs that support sustainable economic growth, including in rural areas, and the sustainable management of natural resources through investments in water resource management systems;

(B) expansion of agricultural and rural development, such as farm-to-market roads, systems to prevent spoilage and waste, and other small-scale infrastructure improvements;

(C) investments in energy, including energy generation and cross-border infrastructure projects with Afghanistan;

(D) employment generation, including increasing investment in infrastructure projects, including construction of roads and the continued development of a national aviation industry and aviation infrastructure, as well as support for small and medium enterprises;

(E) worker rights, including the right to form labor unions and legally enforce provisions safeguarding the rights of workers and local community stakeholders;

(F) access to microfinance for small business establishment and income generation, particularly for women; and

(G) countering radicalization by providing economic, social, educational, and vocational opportunities and life-skills training to at-risk youth.

(4) To support investments in people, particularly women and children, including–

(A) promoting modern, public primary and secondary education and vocational and technical training, including programs to assist in the development of modern, nationwide school curriculums for public, private, and religious schools; support for the proper oversight of all educational institutions, including religious schools, as required by Pakistani law; initiatives to enhance access to education and vocational and technical training for women and girls and to increase women’s literacy, with a special emphasis on helping girls stay in school; and construction and maintenance of libraries and public schools;

(B) programs relating to higher education to ensure a breadth and consistency of Pakistani graduates, including through public-private partnerships;

(C) improving quality public health to eliminate diseases such as hepatitis and to reduce maternal and under-five mortality rates;

(D) building capacity for nongovernmental and civil society organizations, particularly organizations with demonstrated experience in delivering services to the people of Pakistan, particularly to women, children, and other vulnerable populations; and

(E) support for refugees and internally displaced persons and long-term development in regions of Pakistan where internal conflict has caused large-scale displacement.

(5) To strengthen public diplomacy to combat militant extremism and promote a better understanding of the United States, including–

(A) encouraging civil society, respected scholars, and other leaders to speak out against militancy and violence; and

(B) expanded exchange activities under the Fulbright Program, the International Visitor Leadership Program, the Youth Exchange and Study Program, and related programs administered by the Department of State designed to promote mutual understanding and interfaith dialogue and expand sister institution programs between United States and Pakistani schools and universities.

(c) Additional and Related Activities-

(1) AVAILABILITY OF AMOUNTS FOR PAKISTANI POLICE PROFESSIONALIZATION, EQUIPPING, AND TRAINING- Not less than $150,000,000 of the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2010 pursuant to the authorization of appropriations under section 102 should be made available for assistance to Pakistan under this section for police professionalization, equipping, and training.

(2) AVAILABILITY OF AMOUNTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES- Up to $10,000,000 of the amounts appropriated for each fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of appropriations under section 102 may be made available for administrative expenses of civilian departments and agencies of the United States Government in connection with the provision of assistance under this section.

(3) UTILIZING PAKISTANI ORGANIZATIONS- The President is encouraged, as appropriate, to utilize Pakistani firms and community and local nongovernmental organizations in Pakistan, including through host country contracts, and to work with local leaders to provide assistance under this section.

(4) USE OF DIRECT EXPENDITURES- Amounts appropriated for each fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of appropriations under section 102 or otherwise made available to carry out this section shall be utilized to the maximum extent possible as direct expenditures for projects and programs, subject to existing reporting and notification requirements.

(5) CHIEF OF MISSION FUND- Of the amounts appropriated for each fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of appropriations under section 102, up to $5,000,000 may be used by the Secretary of State to establish a fund for use by the Chief of Mission in Pakistan to provide assistance to Pakistan under this title or the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) to address urgent needs or opportunities, consistent with the purposes of this section, or for purposes of humanitarian relief. The fund established pursuant to this paragraph may be referred to as the `Chief of Mission Fund’.

(6) SENSE OF CONGRESS- It is the sense of Congress that–

(A) the United States should provide robust assistance to the people of Pakistan who have been displaced as a result of ongoing conflict and violence in Pakistan and support international efforts to coordinate assistance to refugees and internally displaced persons in Pakistan, including by providing support to international and nongovernmental organizations for this purpose;

(B) the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development should support the development objectives of the Refugee Affected and Host Areas (RAHA) Initiative in Pakistan to address livelihoods, health, education, infrastructure development, and environmental restoration in identified parts of the country where Afghan refugees have lived; and

(C) the United States should have a coordinated, strategic communications strategy to engage the people of Pakistan and to help ensure the success of the measures authorized by this title.

(d) Notification- For fiscal years 2010 through 2014, the President shall notify the appropriate congressional committees not later than 15 days before obligating any assistance under this section as budgetary support to the Government of Pakistan or any element of the Government of Pakistan and shall include in such notification a description of the purpose and conditions attached to any such budgetary support.

SEC. 102. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General- There are authorized to be appropriated to the President, for the purposes of providing assistance to Pakistan under this title and to provide assistance to Pakistan under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), up to $1,500,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014.

(b) Availability of Funds-

(1) IN GENERAL- Of the amounts appropriated in each fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in subsection (a)–

(A) none of the amounts appropriated for assistance to Pakistan may be made available after the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act unless the Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report has been submitted to the appropriate congressional committees pursuant to section 301(a); and

(B) not more than $750,000,000 may be made available for assistance to Pakistan unless the President’s Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan submits to the appropriate congressional committees during such fiscal year–

(i) a certification that assistance provided to Pakistan under this title or the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to date has made or is making reasonable progress toward achieving the principal objectives of United States assistance to Pakistan contained in the Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report; and
(ii) a memorandum explaining the reasons justifying the certification described in clause (i).

(2) MAKER OF CERTIFICATION- In the event of a vacancy in, or the termination of, the position of the President’s Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, the certification and memorandum described under paragraph (1)(B) may be made by the Secretary of State.

(c) Waiver- The Secretary of State may waive the limitations in subsection (b) if the Secretary determines, and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees, that it is in the national security interests of the United States to do so.

(d) Sense of Congress on Foreign Assistance Funds- It is the sense of Congress that, subject to an improving political and economic climate in Pakistan, there should be authorized to be appropriated up to $1,500,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2015 through 2019 for the purpose of providing assistance to Pakistan under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

SEC. 103. AUDITING.

(a) Assistance Authorized- The Inspector General of the Department of State, the Inspector General of the United States Agency for International Development, and the inspectors general of other Federal departments and agencies (other than the Inspector General of the Department of Defense) carrying out programs, projects, and activities using amounts appropriated to carry out this title shall audit, investigate, and oversee the obligation and expenditure of such amounts.

(b) Authorization for In-Country Presence- The Inspector General of the Department of State and the Inspector General of the United States Agency for International Development, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, are authorized to establish field offices in Pakistan with sufficient staff from each of the Offices of the Inspector General, respectively, to carry out subsection (a).

(c) Authorization of Appropriations-

(1) IN GENERAL- Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 102 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014, up to $30,000,000 for each fiscal year is authorized to be made available to carry out this section.

(2) RELATION TO OTHER AVAILABLE FUNDS- Amounts made available under paragraph (1) are in addition to amounts otherwise available for such purposes.

TITLE II–SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR PAKISTAN

SEC. 201. PURPOSES OF ASSISTANCE.

The purposes of assistance under this title are–

(1) to support Pakistan’s paramount national security need to fight and win the ongoing counterinsurgency within its borders in accordance with its national security interests;

(2) to work with the Government of Pakistan to improve Pakistan’s border security and control and help prevent any Pakistani territory from being used as a base or conduit for terrorist attacks in Pakistan, or elsewhere;

(3) to work in close cooperation with the Government of Pakistan to coordinate action against extremist and terrorist targets; and

(4) to help strengthen the institutions of democratic governance and promote control of military institutions by a democratically elected civilian government.

SEC. 202. AUTHORIZATION OF ASSISTANCE.

(a) International Military Education and Training-

(1) IN GENERAL- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for assistance under chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.; relating to international military education and training) for Pakistan, including expanded international military education and training (commonly known as `E-IMET’).

(2) USE OF FUNDS- It is the sense of Congress that a substantial amount of funds made available to carry out this subsection for a fiscal year should be used to pay for courses of study and training in counterinsurgency and civil-military relations.

(b) Foreign Military Financing Program-

(1) IN GENERAL- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for grant assistance under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763; relating to the Foreign Military Financing program) for the purchase of defense articles, defense services, and military education and training for Pakistan.

(2) USE OF FUNDS-

(A) IN GENERAL- A significant portion of the amount made available to carry out this subsection for a fiscal year shall be for the purchase of defense articles, defense services, and military education and training for activities relating to counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations in Pakistan.

(B) SENSE OF CONGRESS- It is the sense of Congress that a significant majority of funds made available to carry out this subsection for a fiscal year should be used for the purpose described in subparagraph (A).

(3) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY- Except as provided in sections 3 and 102 of the Arms Export Control Act, the second section 620J of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (as added by Public Law 110-161), and any provision of an Act making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs that restricts assistance to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree, and except as otherwise provided in this title, amounts authorized to be made available to carry out paragraph (2) for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 are authorized to be made available notwithstanding any other provision of law.

(4) DEFINITIONS- In this section, the terms `defense articles’, `defense services’, and `military education and training’ have the meaning given such terms in section 644 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2403).

(c) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that the United States should facilitate Pakistan’s establishment of a program to provide reconstruction assistance, including through Pakistan’s military as appropriate, in areas damaged by combat operations.

(d) Exchange Program Between Military and Civilian Personnel of Pakistan and Certain Other Countries-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of State is authorized to establish an exchange program between–

(A) military and civilian personnel of Pakistan; and

(B)(i) military and civilian personnel of countries determined by the Secretary of State to be in the process of consolidating and strengthening a democratic form of government; or
(ii) military and civilian personnel of North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries,
in order to foster greater mutual respect for and understanding of the principle of civilian rule of the military.

(2) ELEMENTS OF PROGRAM- The program authorized under paragraph (1) may include conferences, seminars, exchanges, and other events, distribution of publications and reimbursements of expenses of foreign military personnel participating in the program, including transportation, translation and administrative expenses.

(3) ROLE OF NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS- Amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section for a fiscal year are authorized to be made available for nongovernmental organizations to facilitate the implementation of the program authorized under paragraph (1).

(4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to carry out the program established by this subsection.

SEC. 203. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN ASSISTANCE.

(a) Limitation on Security-related Assistance- For fiscal years 2011 through 2014, no security-related assistance may be provided to Pakistan in a fiscal year until the Secretary of State, under the direction of the President, makes the certification required under subsection (c) for such fiscal year.

(b) Limitation on Arms Transfers- For fiscal years 2012 through 2014, no letter of offer to sell major defense equipment to Pakistan may be issued pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) and no license to export major defense equipment to Pakistan may be issued pursuant to such Act in a fiscal year until the Secretary of State, under the direction of the President, makes the certification required under subsection (c) for such fiscal year.

(c) Certification- The certification required by this subsection is a certification by the Secretary of State, under the direction of the President, to the appropriate congressional committees that–

(1) the Government of Pakistan is continuing to cooperate with the United States in efforts to dismantle supplier networks relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapons-related materials, such as providing relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks;

(2) the Government of Pakistan during the preceding fiscal year has demonstrated a sustained commitment to and is making significant efforts towards combating terrorist groups, consistent with the purposes of assistance described in section 201, including taking into account the extent to which the Government of Pakistan has made progress on matters such as–

(A) ceasing support, including by any elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agency, to extremist and terrorist groups, particularly to any group that has conducted attacks against United States or coalition forces in Afghanistan, or against the territory or people of neighboring countries;

(B) preventing al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, from operating in the territory of Pakistan, including carrying out cross-border attacks into neighboring countries, closing terrorist camps in the FATA, dismantling terrorist bases of operations in other parts of the country, including Quetta and Muridke, and taking action when provided with intelligence about high-level terrorist targets; and

(C) strengthening counterterrorism and anti-money laundering laws; and

(3) the security forces of Pakistan are not materially and substantially subverting the political or judicial processes of Pakistan.

(d) Certain Payments-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), none of the funds appropriated for security-related assistance for fiscal years 2010 through 2014, or any amounts appropriated to the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund established under the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32), may be obligated or expended to make payments relating to–

(A) the Letter of Offer and Acceptance PK-D-YAD signed between the Governments of the United States of America and Pakistan on September 30, 2006;

(B) the Letter of Offer and Acceptance PK-D-NAP signed between the Governments of the United States of America and Pakistan on September 30, 2006; and

(C) the Letter of Offer and Acceptance PK-D-SAF signed between the Governments of the United States of America and Pakistan on September 30, 2006.

(2) EXCEPTION- Funds appropriated for security-related assistance for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 may be used for construction and related activities carried out pursuant to the Letters of Offer and Acceptance described in paragraph (1).

(e) Waiver-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of State, under the direction of the President, may waive the limitations contained in subsections (a), (b), and (d) for a fiscal year if the Secretary of State determines that is important to the national security interests of the United States to do so.

(2) PRIOR NOTICE OF WAIVER- The Secretary of State, under the direction of the President, may not exercise the authority of paragraph (1) until 7 days after the Secretary of State provides to the appropriate congressional committees a written notice of the intent to issue to waiver and the reasons therefor. The notice may be submitted in classified or unclassified form, as necessary.

(f) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate congressional committees’ means–

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.

SEC. 204. PAKISTAN COUNTERINSURGENCY CAPABILITY FUND.

(a) For Fiscal Year 2010-

(1) IN GENERAL- For fiscal year 2010, the Department of State’s Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund established under the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32), hereinafter in this section referred to as the `Fund’, shall consist of the following:

(A) Amounts appropriated to carry out this subsection (which may not include any amounts appropriated to carry out title I of this Act).

(B) Amounts otherwise available to the Secretary of State to carry out this subsection.

(2) PURPOSES OF FUND- Amounts in the Fund made available to carry out this subsection for any fiscal year are authorized to be used by the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, to build and maintain the counterinsurgency capability of Pakistan under the same terms and conditions (except as otherwise provided in this subsection) that are applicable to amounts made available under the Fund for fiscal year 2009.

(3) TRANSFER AUTHORITY-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of State is authorized to transfer amounts in the Fund made available to carry out this subsection for any fiscal year to the Department of Defense’s Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund established under the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32) and such amounts may be transferred back to the Fund if the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, determines that such amounts are not needed for the purposes for which initially transferred.

(B) TREATMENT OF TRANSFERRED FUNDS- Subject to subsections (d) and (e) of section 203, transfers from the Fund under the authority of subparagraph (A) shall be merged with and be available for the same purposes and for the same time period as amounts in the Department of Defense’s Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund.

(C) RELATION TO OTHER AUTHORITIES- The authority to provide assistance under this subsection is in addition to any other authority to provide assistance to foreign countries.

(D) NOTIFICATION- The Secretary of State shall, not less than 15 days prior to making transfers from the Fund under subparagraph (A), notify the appropriate congressional committees in writing of the details of any such transfer.

(b) Submission of Notifications- Any notification required by this section may be submitted in classified or unclassified form, as necessary.

(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate congressional committees’ means–

(1) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

SEC. 205. REQUIREMENTS FOR CIVILIAN CONTROL OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE.

(a) Requirements-

(1) IN GENERAL- For fiscal years 2010 through 2014, any direct cash security-related assistance or non-assistance payments by the United States to the Government of Pakistan may only be provided or made to civilian authorities of a civilian government of Pakistan.

(2) DOCUMENTATION- For fiscal years 2010 through 2014, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, shall ensure that civilian authorities of a civilian government of Pakistan have received a copy of final documentation provided to the United States related to non-assistance payments provided or made to the Government of Pakistan.

(b) Waiver-

(1) SECURITY-RELATED ASSISTANCE- The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, may waive the requirements of subsection (a) with respect to security-related assistance described in subsection (a) funded from accounts within budget function 150 (International Affairs) if the Secretary of State certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that the waiver is important to the national security interest of the United States.

(2) NON-ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS- The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may waive the requirements of subsection (a) with respect to non-assistance payments described in subsection (a) funded from accounts within budget function 050 (National Defense) if the Secretary of Defense certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that the waiver is important to the national security interest of the United States.

(c) Application to Certain Activities- Nothing in this section shall apply with respect to–

(1) any activities subject to reporting requirements under title V of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413 et seq.);

(2) any assistance to promote democratic elections or public participation in democratic processes;

(3) any assistance or payments if the Secretary of State determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that subsequent to the termination of assistance or payments a democratically elected government has taken office;

(4) any assistance or payments made pursuant to section 1208 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375; 118 Stat. 2086), as amended;

(5) any payments made pursuant to the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement between the Department of Defense of the United States of America and the Ministry of Defense of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; and

(6) any assistance or payments made pursuant to section 943 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417; 122 Stat. 4578).

(d) Definitions- In this section–

(1) the term `appropriate congressional committees’ means the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Relations of the Senate; and

(2) the term `civilian government of Pakistan’ does not include any government of Pakistan whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree.

TITLE III–STRATEGY, ACCOUNTABILITY, MONITORING, AND OTHER PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. STRATEGY REPORTS.

(a) Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report- Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report describing United States policy and strategy with respect to assistance to Pakistan under this Act. The report shall include the following:

(1) A description of the principal objectives of United States assistance to Pakistan to be provided under title I of this Act.

(2) A general description of the specific programs, projects, and activities designed to achieve the purposes of section 101 and the respective funding levels for such programs, projects, and activities for fiscal years 2010 through 2014.

(3) A plan for program monitoring, operations research, and impact evaluation research for assistance authorized under title I of this Act.

(4) A description of the role to be played by Pakistani national, regional, and local officials and members of Pakistani civil society and local private sector, civic, religious, and tribal leaders in helping to identify and implement programs and projects for which assistance is to be provided under this Act, and of consultations with such representatives in developing the strategy.

(5) A description of the steps taken, or to be taken, to ensure assistance provided under this Act is not awarded to individuals or entities affiliated with terrorist organizations.

(6) A projection of the levels of assistance to be provided to Pakistan under this Act, broken down into the following categories as described in the annual `Report on the Criteria and Methodology for Determining the Eligibility of Candidate Countries for Millennium Challenge Account Assistance’:

(A) Civil liberties.
(B) Political rights.
(C) Voice and accountability.
(D) Government effectiveness.
(E) Rule of law.
(F) Control of corruption.
(G) Immunization rates.
(H) Public expenditure on health.
(I) Girls’ primary education completion rate.
(J) Public expenditure on primary education.
(K) Natural resource management.
(L) Business start-up.
(M) Land rights and access.
(N) Trade policy.
(O) Regulatory quality.
(P) Inflation control.
(Q) Fiscal policy.

(7) An analysis for the suitable replacement for existing Pakistani helicopters, including recommendations for sustainment and training.

(b) Comprehensive Regional Strategy Report-

(1) SENSE OF CONGRESS- It is the sense of Congress that the achievement of United States national security goals to eliminate terrorist threats and close safe havens in Pakistan requires the development of a comprehensive plan that utilizes all elements of national power, including in coordination and cooperation with other concerned governments, and that it is critical to Pakistan’s long-term prosperity and security to strengthen regional relationships among India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

(2) COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY- The President shall develop a comprehensive interagency regional security strategy to eliminate terrorist threats and close safe havens in Pakistan, including by working with the Government of Pakistan and other relevant governments and organizations in the region and elsewhere, as appropriate, to best implement effective counterinsurgency and counterterrorism efforts in and near the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the FATA, the NWFP, parts of Balochistan, and parts of Punjab.

(3) REPORT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the comprehensive regional security strategy required under paragraph (2).

(B) CONTENTS- The report shall include a copy of the comprehensive regional security strategy, including specifications of goals, and proposed timelines and budgets for implementation of the strategy.

(C) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED- In this paragraph, the term `appropriate congressional committees’ means–

(i) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives; and
(ii) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.

(c) Security-related Assistance Plan- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a plan for the proposed use of amounts authorized for security-related assistance for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Such plan shall include an assessment of how the use of such amounts complements or otherwise is related to amounts described in section 204.

SEC. 302. MONITORING REPORTS.

(a) Semi-Annual Monitoring Report- Not later than 180 days after the submission of the Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report pursuant to section 301(a), and every 180 days thereafter through September 30, 2014, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that describes the assistance provided under this Act during the preceding 180-day period. The report shall include–

(1) a description of all assistance by program, project, and activity, as well as by geographic area, provided pursuant to title I of this Act during the period covered by the report, including the amount of assistance provided for each program or project, and with respect to the first report a description of all amounts made available for assistance to Pakistan during fiscal year 2009, including a description of each program, project, and activity for which funds were made available;

(2) a list of persons or entities from the United States or other countries that have received funds in excess of $100,000 to conduct projects under title I of this Act during the period covered by the report, which may be included in a classified annex, if necessary to avoid a security risk, and a justification for the classification;

(3) with respect to the plan described in section 301(a)(3), updates to such plan and a description of best practices to improve the impact of the assistance authorized under title I of this Act;

(4) an assessment of the effectiveness of assistance provided under title I of this Act during the period covered by the report in achieving desired objectives and outcomes as guided by the plan described in section 301(a)(3), and as updated pursuant to paragraph (3) of this subsection, including a systematic, qualitative, and where possible, quantitative basis for assessing whether desired outcomes are achieved and a timeline for completion of each project and program;

(5) a description of any shortfall in United States financial, physical, technical, or human resources that hinder the effective use and monitoring of such funds;

(6) a description of any negative impact, including the absorptive capacity of the region for which the resources are intended, of United States bilateral or multilateral assistance and recommendations for modification of funding, if any;

(7) any incidents or reports of waste, fraud, and abuse of expenditures under title I of this Act;

(8) the amount of funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to section 102 that were used during the reporting period for administrative expenses or for audits and program reviews pursuant to the authority under sections 101(c)(2) and 103;

(9) a description of the expenditures made from any Chief of Mission Fund established pursuant to section 101(c)(5) during the period covered by the report, the purposes for which such expenditures were made, and a list of the recipients of any expenditures from the Chief of Mission Fund in excess of $100,000;

(10) an accounting of assistance provided to Pakistan under title I of this Act, broken down into the categories set forth in section 301(a)(6);

(11) an evaluation of efforts undertaken by the Government of Pakistan to–

(A) disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremist and terrorist groups in the FATA and settled areas;

(B) eliminate the safe havens of such forces in Pakistan;

(C) close terrorist camps, including those of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed;

(D) cease all support for extremist and terrorist groups;

(E) prevent attacks into neighboring countries;

(F) increase oversight over curriculum in madrassas, including closing madrassas with direct links to the Taliban or other extremist and terrorist groups; and

(G) improve counterterrorism financing and anti-money laundering laws, apply for observer status for the Financial Action Task Force, and take steps to adhere to the United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism;

(12) a detailed description of Pakistan’s efforts to prevent proliferation of nuclear-related material and expertise;

(13) an assessment of whether assistance provided to Pakistan has directly or indirectly aided the expansion of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, whether by the diversion of United States assistance or the reallocation of Pakistan’s financial resources that would otherwise be spent for programs and activities unrelated to its nuclear weapons program;

(14) a detailed description of the extent to which funds obligated and expended pursuant to section 202(b) meet the requirements of such section; and

(15) an assessment of the extent to which the Government of Pakistan exercises effective civilian control of the military, including a description of the extent to which civilian executive leaders and parliament exercise oversight and approval of military budgets, the chain of command, the process of promotion for senior military leaders, civilian involvement in strategic guidance and planning, and military involvement in civil administration.

(b) Government Accountability Office Reports-

(1) PAKISTAN ASSISTANCE STRATEGY REPORT- Not later than one year after the submission of the Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report pursuant to section 301(a), the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that contains–

(A) a review of, and comments addressing, the Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report;

(B) recommendations relating to any additional actions the Comptroller General believes could help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of United States efforts to meet the objectives of this Act;

(C) a detailed description of the expenditures made by Pakistan pursuant to grant assistance under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763; relating to the Foreign Military Financing program); and

(D) an assessment of the impact of the assistance on the security and stability of Pakistan.

(2) CERTIFICATION REPORT- Not later than 120 days after the date on which the President makes the certification described in section 203(c) for a fiscal year, the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an independent analysis of the certification described in such section and shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report containing the results of the independent analysis.

(c) Submission- The Secretary of State may submit the reports required by this section in conjunction with other reports relating to Pakistan required under other provisions of law, including sections 1116 and 1117 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32; 123 Stat. 1906 and 1907).

(d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined- In this section, the term `appropriate congressional committees’ means–

(1) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.

97 Comments on “Text of the Final Version of the Kerry-Lugar Bill: Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009”

  1. Jabbar says:
    October 7th, 2009 11:44 pm

    Thank you for posting the whole Bill.I have seen bits and pieces of this but not eh whole thing and not the official version. Frankly, at this point I do not know who to believe and who not to believe. So having the full real Bill to look at is useful. Let me get to reading it now.

  2. Aliya says:
    October 8th, 2009 1:09 am

    Very good of you to put this up.

    Reading this does give one a different picture from what one gets in the Pakistan media.

    For example, there is a LOT of stress on economic development and making sure this money is used for economic development.

    Also, from the media it had seemed that this was a loan, but from this it is clear that it is not.

    I was also glad to see that a sizeable money is kept for making the police stronger.

  3. Nauman says:
    October 8th, 2009 3:38 am

    thanks for posting the bill, would take out its print and read it carefully.

    before commenting i would like to ask whether there is in the bill to appoint military chiefs with US consultation ?

  4. Darweesh says:
    October 8th, 2009 3:53 am

    Don,t agree with this version as it does not reveal the “secret ” clauses Americans want to implement through PPP Govt as promised by Zardari in his/PPP deal with USA.
    These clauses are all in papers now and have been examined/dsicussed at all forums in Pakistan. The secret is out of back ,bashed/thrashed as well
    In fact the present successful army action in Swat has reestablished Govt writ in CIA-MOSAD-RAW fested Pak areas which is against long term US interests in Afghanistan and former oil rich soviet union Muslim rebpublics .
    US wants our Army to play a second fiddle in US struggle to ultimately sit in Kabul permanently and move to oil rich republics. But for their dismay Pak army has given them a signal that without Pakistan military and political support as Main Player in the region they cant be in control in Afghanistan and above.
    This is very frustrating for India,USA and its allies.They have found an illitrate/sick fool as ally in our presidency.
    Mr Zardari should now be asked to quit , go back to his “homeland” USA and get medical treatment he used to enjoy there ( quote-Shahid Masood- Mere Mutabik/Jang/News). Pakistan has no place for traitors.
    Messers Kery,Lugar, Zardari ,thakyou very much, its all over , People Of Pakistan know what our sovereignity is .

  5. Adam Insaan says:
    October 8th, 2009 4:51 am

    Regarding SOVEREIGNITY of Pakistan ,

    -as a consequence of factors/quae this bill and amongst others others, -can Pakistan p.t. and in spe be classified as a SOVEREIGN state ? ?

    The information I am getting from relatives living in Islamabad is that the authority of the police has been compromised in more than one incidence.
    There are structures that in my eyes can be classified as non-govermental non-pakistani origin, but rather of having association to foreign state, read `Kala Pani -look-alike´.

    The attacks on Pakistani soil by non-Pakistani army,
    they be drone-attacks or related.

    The “aid” through many years now , during the Gen.Musharraf era.

    And now this bill. (The hand that gives is always the upper hand).

    -is Pakistan a SOVERIEGN state anymore…….???

    I am just asking, the answer is written on the WALL
    or may be blowing in the wind.

  6. Waqas says:
    October 8th, 2009 5:34 am

    Dear Adil,

    I think you are referring to Senate version in your article which was passed in June.

    As far as I understand, the controversy is on the House version passed in September. Please find the version here:
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3642ih.txt.pdf

    The language of the bill is totally different and so are the terms.

  7. October 8th, 2009 5:59 am
  8. shakeel says:
    October 8th, 2009 7:01 am

    I am not sure which bill is correct!

    Here, SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    but there http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3642

    Sec2 is DEFENITIONS And the words are different from the very first sentence onwards. So we have two different bills on the same site.

  9. shakeel says:
    October 8th, 2009 7:15 am

    http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-Where-the-partnership-qs-04

    Worth reading.

    Also guys .. is there a way to register here? It’s quite annoying to type your name, email address all time you want to post? Thanks for the info.

    To Darweesh – bro, is your post a sarcastic one or are you for real?

  10. Darweesh says:
    October 8th, 2009 7:29 am

    @ Shakeel, brother
    I am a student of history/intenational relations.
    These are historical factors/facts .
    Pakistan is excellently placed strategicaly to become the Main Player in present American Policy / planning to grab oil fields in the uplands above Pakistan. Not possible for them otherwise
    I think our military strategists understand it well .

  11. jk says:
    October 8th, 2009 7:54 am

    Thank you. I posted a link to the final version in the previous discussion but no one wants to read it. Instead people were just making wild conjectures based on self made conspiracy theories.

  12. Ali says:
    October 8th, 2009 8:07 am

    Well in an equation of our muscle (economic and military) and our past record, isn’t it true that:
    1. We have been the only nuclear state where non-state actors had access to our nuclear installations?
    2. We have had a history of nurturing groups which have infiltrated in India, Russia, Afghanistan, US, UK, Spain, Indonesia, Iran, Bangladesh, Nepal and China?
    3. Military rule has proven to be near fatal for Pakistan’s state and society.

    With this record, if International Community wants safeguards of good conduct while giving us aid, what’s the fuss about?

    Also, thoroughly disappointed in PML-N who while chanting the slogans against Army intervention in politics is playing Army’s game based on a late-night rendezvous with the COAS.

  13. Awais says:
    October 8th, 2009 8:18 am

    i am sorry but who the hell are corp commander to tell the Govt that they have ‘resorvations’ on this bill.
    its same as Police, Judiary, Income Tax, Land revine departement telling Govt of Pakistan [for right or wrong reasons] that they have resorvations on this bill.

    and secondalry where were these bloody corp commander when Musharraf put marshal law why they didnt had ANY RESORVATION then.

  14. Rammal says:
    October 8th, 2009 8:55 am

    @Awais: Corp Commanders are the people who protect Pakistan and fight for Pakistan. In this bill Pakistan has been describe as a terrorist state by saying that Pakistan was involved in “the suicide car bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, which killed 58 people on June 7, 2008; and
    (ii) the massacre of approximately 165 people in Mumbai, India, including 6 United States citizens, in late November 2008″.

    That is not only unacceptable to the Army, but also to the nation of Pakistan.

    There’s nothing wrong with Martial Law if country needs one. The power of Army is transferred from the retiring Army Chief to the next General via a proper ceremony. A ceremony in which the retiring Army Chief will hand over his stick (which he carries with himself all the time) to the next Chief. Nawaz Sharif was going to appoint next Army chief in an inappropriate and in a hypocritical way. That’s why Martial law had to be imposed.

    May God have some mercy on the Pakistani nation and give them patience and tolerance and discipline!

  15. October 8th, 2009 9:29 am

    Readers have rightly pointed out that this is the original Senate Version. We had tried to make this clear by the large US Senate icon at the top but realize we should have added further clarity. We have now also added this to the headline. ATP also intends to put up the full House version (S.1707) for comparasion, discussion and commentary.

  16. Aamir Ali says:
    October 8th, 2009 10:34 am

    I doubt Pakistani nation has ever read a single bill of their own parliament, in contrast to the scrutiny going on of the Kerry-Lugar Bill !!

  17. October 8th, 2009 11:01 am

    In May this year, I had written that the KLB is an opportunity for democratic Pakistan. http://thetrajectory.com/blogs/?p=510
    I stand by those comments even today, though the discussion in Pakistan has not noticed this opportunity.
    The most important element of the proposed bill is the repeated reference to the ‘people of Pakistan’. U.S. commitment to the needs of Pakistani people is proposed to go beyond the fluctuating government to government relationship. The people of Pakistan cannot be punished for the inability of their Government to optimally utilize U.S. military aid to counter terrorism. The justification for reducing and conditioning military aid to Pakistan is as strong as the rationale for increasing non-military aid to the country. The failure of to realize the socio-economic benefits promised through Kerry-Lugar aid plan will be a failure of Pakistani democracy and not American strategy.

  18. Atif says:
    October 8th, 2009 11:12 am

    Pakistanis should stop complaining
    Neither beggers have right to choose
    Nor prostitutes have right to complain
    American politicians considers pakistanis not more than beggers and prostitutes

    sorry, but it’s reality!

  19. Sager says:
    October 8th, 2009 11:26 am

    This is a great bill that says” USA dont trust pakistani politicians & Army Generals with our AID Money so therefore Americans will do it themselves”.

    This is such a great idea, no more middle men to steal AID money thats why Generals & some politicians dont like this idea and its not going to fly any more. Beggers cant be choosers!

  20. Azra raza says:
    October 8th, 2009 12:35 pm

    The debate on the bill in Pakistan should have been done prior to passing it in the US Congress, now it is too late and we are making a ‘mockary’ of the whole thing by these media debates and parliamentary discussions.
    This will only make the US opposition to the Kerry-Lugar bill,food for thought that Pakistani people are not accepting the bill, so why bother having the US President Obama sign it.

  21. siyasi aadmin says:
    October 8th, 2009 12:40 pm

    I agree with the commentator on the version of the bill that was passed with congress. The site should publish the final version and not the version passed by the Senate in order to get to the root cause of it . Do a search for Quetta and Muridke and you will be able to find it in there. I think the media is right in voicing concerns on this.

  22. Shao Li says:
    October 8th, 2009 12:44 pm

    Hello!
    Don’t get controlled by others.
    See the Term of years section:

    “this Act shall remain in force after September 30, 2013″,

    Read the word ‘after’ that means you will be slaves FOREVER.

  23. atif says:
    October 8th, 2009 1:09 pm

    the us gov website offers a pdf version s962 of june 09 which is a version different than that the one displayed on following the link http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3642

    the 3642 version or s962 version which is the final. s962 was of june 09 and the 3642 is september 2009. i believe the sept 09 version hurts pakistan

  24. October 8th, 2009 1:29 pm
  25. Adnan Siddiqi says:
    October 8th, 2009 2:05 pm

    Kerry-Lugar Bill Kahin Zardari aur uska Hamnawao ko “Bill” mey na bhej day

  26. October 8th, 2009 5:01 pm

    PLEASE NOTE THAT WE HAVE REPLACED THE ORIGINAL SENATE BILL (WHICH WAS POSTED EARLIER) WITH THE MOST RECENT SENATE BILL (S.1707) WHICH IS BEING SENT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR SIGNATURE.

  27. Roxio says:
    October 8th, 2009 5:07 pm

    Its time to stop harping “read the bill first” mantra.
    I have read the bill myself so I can say with confidence,it is certainly not in Pakistan’s interest to accept the money and then go about carrying out the instructions from the Pentagon.
    The bill is not a holy scripture that everyone must read it.
    Thousands of Pakistani journalists have read it and they are all against it.So everybody cannot be wrong.

  28. ASAD says:
    October 8th, 2009 5:20 pm

    Very interesting argument by Roxio.

    He/she wants people NOT to read the Bill and just take his/her word for it.

    I wonder why?

    Interesting also, that both Roxio and the government of India do not like the Kerry Lugar Bill. I wonder why?

  29. Javed Durrani says:
    October 8th, 2009 5:44 pm

    Nice one, Asad.

    I was also surprised why Roxio does not want people to read the Bill.

    Although the India bit is a little too much. I think Indians are opposing the bill for different reasons than some Pakistanis. Indians are opposing it because they oppose anything that can be good for Pakistan and some Pakistanis are opposing it because they oppose anything that USA does even if it is good for Pakistan.

  30. Javed Durrani says:
    October 8th, 2009 5:47 pm

    By the way, Roxio, you are right.

    EVERYBODY cannot be wrong. The majority of us who say that even if teh Bill has mistakes, having more money for education and health and development for Pakistanis (instead for ISI) is a good thing, ARE RIGHT.

  31. Sajjad Junaidi says:
    October 8th, 2009 6:48 pm

    First paragraph of the bill states:

    “To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to promote an enhanced strategic partnership with Pakistan and its people, and for other purposes.”

    I think Zardari accepted the Bill after reading this first para because he saw his 10% share covered under “other purposes”.

    Okay joke aside, I think overall Bill is good for the people of Pakistan.

  32. viqar minai says:
    October 8th, 2009 8:14 pm

    For those interested, here is the link to the Time Magazine report concerning reaction to the K-L Bill in Pakistan:

    http://tinyurl.com/yg2ohqq

  33. PAKISTANI says:
    October 8th, 2009 8:17 pm

    No diplomat allowed to carry arms
    Friday, October 09, 2009
    By Ansar Abbasi

    ISLAMABAD: The government has categorically said that no foreign diplomat, whether American, Dutch or from any other country, is permitted to carry weapons within the territorial limits of Pakistan. However, recent incidents show the US diplomats in particular have been violating the law of the land frequently.

    Although, in case of two Dutch diplomats who were caught red-handed on Tuesday while carrying weapons, including hand-grenades, a formal complaint has been lodged by the Islamabad Police, no such police action was initiated in repeated cases of US diplomats who were allowed to go scot-free.

    US Embassy spokesman Richard Snelsire, when approached, did not answer the question if the US Embassy and its diplomats were permitted by the Government of Pakistan to carry with them weapons. Richard though admitted that four US officials were found carrying weapons with them yet insisted that after the incident, the US Embassy spoke to the Pakistani authorities and got the issue resolved.

    Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit categorically said no foreign diplomat or foreign mission was permitted by the Government of Pakistan to carry weapons. Two Dutch embassy diplomats were caught red-handed on Tuesday while carrying pistols, at least four hand-grenades, several bullet proof jackets in their car that was bearing a fake registration number.

    The secretariat police formally lodged a complaint against them, besides nominating in the report a US embassy’s local employee, Sunny Christopher, for unnecessarily intervening into the Dutch diplomats’ episode. Richard Snelsire said the US embassy’s local employee was serving as a cook/driver and had no connection with the Dutch officials.

    In at least three incidents, the US Embassy officials/diplomats were found carrying weapons on roads of the federal capital. On June 23, 2009 a double cabin vehicle coming from the NWFP passed through a police check-post at Golra where the police tried to stop it but it did not stop. It was intercepted at a check-post at the Khyber Chowk in G-9/4. Three American diplomats — Jeffery, Jeffdic and James Bill Koeen and driver Charlie Benzic — belonging to the Regional Security Section of the US Embassy were found in the vehicle. They were wearing Shalwar Kameez, having beards, were in the Pathan get-up and carrying four M-4 machine-guns and four 9mm pistols.

    Sources said that on the intervention of the then SP Saddar, the vehicle was allowed to go. In yet another incident, on August 5, 2009, Inspector Hakim Khan of the Islamabad Police was passing through a check-post near the US Embassy along with his wife in a private car and he was stopped by a US security official John Arso and was abused. Once the police inspector told the US official that the latter could not check vehicles on a public road, the US diplomat took out his pistol and said he could do anything anywhere in Pakistan. Hakim Khan later formally reported the matter and lodged a complaint with his superiors.

    The US spokesman confirmed an exchange of harsh words. Richard, however, said the US official never displayed pistol. The US security official was sent back to Washington early last month.

    In yet another incident, on August 12, 2009, a Pakistani young boy, living in the Diplomatic Enclave, along with his two friends was passing through a private security check-post near the US Embassy in a Suzuki car when a US Marine, who was jogging along with his wife on the same road, stopped the car and broke its side mirror by kicking at it. The Marine, the report said, also abused the boy and the host country too. The young boy and his friends protested following which the US Marine got them detained by the local security guards present there. They were allowed to go after 40 minutes of detention but only with a warning that they would never drive again on that particular road.

    The US spokesman explained the US official was jogging on the pavement when a car almost hit him. The US official, he said, jumped out of the way but knocked another person jogging beside him. This collusion, he said, resulted in breaking the car’s side mirror.

    In another incident, on August 26, 2009, Mohsin Bukhari, owner of Shell petrol Sector F-6 (Super Market) was stopped by two US nationals at the signal on the Agha Khan Road, near the Marriott Hotel after some routine road driving tension. He was asked to show his identity and then taken to his petrol pump and questioned for 30 minutes after a team of security staff from the US Embassy had also joined the two Americans.

    http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=202264

  34. Faizan says:
    October 8th, 2009 9:47 pm

    Thank you for posting this. The contribution you are making to a real debate is important just by putting this p for everyone to see and make up their own mind.

    I think what is bothering people is the last section on monitoring. But I read it and frankly there is nothing there that Pakistan is not already doing. So, there is nothing new in that except the 7.5Billion. And spending that on development would be a good thing. Spending it on ordinary Pakistanis rather that politicians and army would be a good thing.

    As a Pakistani I am glad that there are provisions against corruption. Those are greatly needed.

  35. Tahira says:
    October 8th, 2009 10:08 pm

    cant find anything wrong with the bill or its language. Pakistan does need financial support.

  36. Aliya says:
    October 8th, 2009 10:14 pm

    I think it is only Indian agents and ISI agents who are opposing the Bill because they do not like this at all.

    India does not want Pakistanis to benefit and the ISI is just worried that their control will weaken. How can real Pakistanis oppose development money being spent on Pakistanis for a change.

  37. Ali Hassan says:
    October 8th, 2009 10:29 pm

    I think the last comment and some of the other ones are unfair.

    Personally, I think we are making a big deal of this and I don’t dislike some of the development focus of the Bill, but to call anyone who opposes it an Indian agent or an ISI agent is very unfair and wrong. I know many good people who are convinced that this s bad for Pakistan and that is entirely their right. To attack them like this is wrong and not the type of thing that should be tolerated.

  38. Imtiaz says:
    October 8th, 2009 10:40 pm

    I think the point made by Prof. Najam in his post yesterday hits it on the head. The distrust is so very deep that no matter what the Bill says or not, Pakistanis will feel cheated and afraid of hidden meanings in it. And because of deep distrust no matter how much Pakistan does, the US will always be suspicious of us and write the type of offending language that this Bill uses. As long as that distrust remains, nothing will work.

  39. Roxio says:
    October 8th, 2009 10:53 pm

    To Javed Durrani and Asad,
    Who doesn’t want money for development?Who doesn’t want schools and roads?
    Firstly $1.5b is a pittance.Its a small price US Congress will pay for a big job i.e to bring ISI and the Army effectively under people like Asif Zardari,which is a nightmare scenario.

    A few years back Turkey was offered $30 billion just to let US forces transit through to Iraq and Turkish parliament rejected it.In Afghanistan,US is spending $120 billion per year for God knows how long.

    Secondly about reading the bill,it doesn’t matter how many times one reads it.If you want you can keep on reading it until you memorize every word but I doubt the real intentions behind the words will ever change.

    Pakistanis living abroad who are many times more patriotic than people like Asif Zardari,are sending home close to $10 billion a year with no conditions.
    I am sure a little more effort and a campaign can increase it to $12 billion a year.That money dwarfs the peanuts doled out in this bill with punishing conditionalities.

  40. Haroon says:
    October 8th, 2009 11:30 pm

    I have read this very carefully now.

    I do think that the accusatory tone of the last section is disturbing. Its like a school teacher scolding a little kid and reminding him of all the bad things he has done.

    Substantively that does not make much difference because it is really not operational in any way, but it does make one cringe and feel angry at the writers of these clauses.

  41. Haroon says:
    October 8th, 2009 11:31 pm

    The TV channels keep saying that there is a clause about how US will have right to approve all senior military appointments, can someone point out what clause they are referring to?

  42. Idealist says:
    October 8th, 2009 11:46 pm

    Share this story!

    Folly beyond comprehension

    Islamabad diary

    Friday, October 09, 2009
    Ayaz Amir

    General de Gaulle, who did not have a very high idea of American astuteness, once proclaimed his faith in America’s ability to commit follies that were beyond comprehension. The Kerry-Lugar Bill certainly does not come up to such historical folly as Vietnam and Iraq. But it is a minor testimony to America’s ability to deliver things that defy understanding.

    Where our American friends were trying to build bridges of friendship they have succeeded in laying a minefield which has ignited outrage and mass suspicion across the length and breadth of Pakistan’s brittle political landscape. The bill’s details are now a matter of secondary importance. A professor of linguistics can come and put a benign gloss on them but most Pakistanis will not be convinced.

    The general perception fostered by some of the bill’s language is that it is an affront to Pakistani dignity and sovereignty. No amount of eleventh-hour massaging or spin doctoring is going to alter this perception.

    True, Pakistani dignity may be a pretty battered concept. If we run through our list of historical achievements, there may not be much to be proud of. Still, one can live with diminished dignity if one’s nose is not rubbed in the dust. This bill’s sublime achievement is to do precisely this. For it reads more like a sustained indictment of Pakistan than a charter of friendship.

    And when the corps commanders — still in the eyes of many Pakistanis, the highest court of appeal — too weigh in with a public rebuke of the bill (in itself quite an unprecedented step) then it becomes clear that we have a storm on our hands and that the principal test of leadership at this critical juncture is to defuse it. Congressional sensitivities can wait. The disorder at home must be addressed first.

    Why has army sentiment come to this boil? The Kerry-Lugar Bill is not something popping suddenly out of the skies. It has been a year and a half, if not more, in the making. What was the government doing? Was it not aware of this witches’ brew being cooked, and the frogs and spiders being thrown into it?

    There has been no shortage of American officials and congressmen visiting Islamabad during this period. After all it is not the ordinary people of Pakistan who have had the honour of being lectured by Mr Holbrooke and others of his kind. Granted we don’t have the brightest of people manning the higher echelons of government — and this includes everyone. But even certified dimwits should have had some idea of what was going on.

    But if our paladins allowed themselves to be caught short, the blame cuts right across the entire ruling spectrum — from the presidency and the prime minister’s office to General Headquarters. All of them, and some of us, should have done some of our homework earlier.

    But all this is past. We should now be making amends for what we failed to do. But President Zardari, Heaven’s revenge for our many sins, continues to live in a world of his own. His insecurities are well known: some to do with his past and his person, some with his inadequacies when measured against the requirements of his present position. Were he a private person his personal failings would be his own business. But since, alas, he is not a private person, his personal failings become a matter of national concern, especially when they give rise to the suspicion that it is these failings which drive him so desperately into American arms.

    But if he is a disaster at home can the US rescue him? The Americans stood by Musharraf as long as he delivered what they wanted. When he became a political liability at home they started looking for other options. The same logic holds true even now. Americans will look up to Zardari only insofar as he is master of his house. But if the army turns against him, and public opinion is up in arms, Americans are not fools to keep investing in him.

    Doesn’t he realize this? So why is he opening up a front against the army? Why are he and his minions championing the Kerry-Lugar Bill when the present uproar against it is enough to demonstrate that there is little chance that the Pakistani nation will swallow it?

    So what is to be done? If we did not do our homework before we must do it now. A consensus must be developed on how best to deal with this Greek gift from Capitol Hill and we must do it fast.

    The sensible thing would be to offer a prayer and let it go — with as much grace as we can muster. Feelings no doubt will run high on Capitol Hill and we can expect our American friends to have something to say about Pakistanis not knowing what is good for them. But we should take these things in our stride. Our American alliance should not be damaged because regarding the wages of terrorism our interests, with some differences of emphasis, are broadly the same. For both our sakes, we should not lose sight of the larger picture.

    The National Assembly must rise to the occasion and show a better quality of discussion than it has hitherto done on most issues. This should be no occasion to indulge in histrionics. This is something to be discussed calmly and dispassionately, for much is at stake. It bears remembering that if the political class had been more alive to its responsibilities the reaction coming from the corps commanders could have been pre-empted. Like it or not, they have entered where they saw a vacuum developing.

    Of course we can go on and on and say that it is not for them to speak thus in an open manner. The army’s reservations, if any, are best communicated through other channels. But when political procedures break down, or do not function as well as they should, and the political leadership abdicates its responsibilities, the army will flex its muscles. This is a hard fact of life which has surfaced time and again in our short and tempestuous history.

    The point often lost on the political class is that the best way to keep the army in check is for the political leadership to deliver. But if politicians insist on conducting themselves like buffoons they won’t be able to stop generals from teaching them their dancing steps.

    The army’s role in national politics should have been curtailed after the Feb 2008 elections. Instead we see it growing. Why? Because the political leadership is failing to come up to the expectations of the masses. Where radicalism of thought and action was called for they have settled for the politics of expediency and the status quo.

    Pakistan’s democrats have to realize that the margin of error for them is very small. Generals can afford to sow the seeds of disaster and get away with it. Politicians are not allowed the same luxury because they lack the army’s divisions to support them in the error of their ways. The only safeguard for politicians is delivery and performance and if they falter in these, they forfeit their mandate and become fodder for military ambition. This is the way it has been and this, unhappily, is how it is likely to be unless our political masters rise to a higher level of conduct.

    Democracy itself is no cure-all for anything. Russia had democracy and consider what it produced in the first flush of its enthusiasm: a clown in the form of Boris Yeltsin. American democracy in the recent past gifted the world George Bush and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Pakistani democracy has given us Zardari and Gilani and the many astonishing carpetbaggers who hang around them.

    True, ISI and MI have made it one of their central tasks to conspire against politics and democracy. But why do politicians make it so easy for such conspiracies to succeed? Why are politicians so often their own worst enemies?

    Zardari and the PPP government are climbing up the wrong mountain. The Kerry-Lugar Bill is not their salvation. Given the current state of public opinion it will destroy them. Why can’t they read the writing on the wall?

    Email: winlust@yahoo.com

  43. hotaruSTAR16 says:
    October 9th, 2009 1:17 am

    It will be interesting to see how this bill will affect the relationship between Pakistan and the U.S. Have you heard of Asia Chronicle? The site provides good insight and in-depth news analyses on issues facing Pakistan, along with other Asian countries. Worth a read I think. http://www.asiachroniclenews.com

  44. October 9th, 2009 1:50 am

    Your readers may be interested in an analysis of the Engrossed in Senate version of the Bill posted as: The Kerry-Lugar Bill 2009 and the Government of India Act 1858: “Enhanced Strategic Partnership” as the Colonial Governance of Pakistan at afpakwar.com.

  45. Adil says:
    October 9th, 2009 3:54 am

    Section 3(6) is a direct (and baseless) accusation of severest kind. Parts of NWFP, Quetta in Balochistan and Muridke in Punjab are a sanctuary for AlQaeda terrorists?

    What non-sense is this. Accepting this bill as it is means that we are admitting that Muridke , Quetta and parts of NWFP (which parts, not specified) are sanctuaries of AlQaeda and Taliban. This isn’t an aid bill. This is a baseless charge sheet against Pakistan. Specific reference to Muridke (which has got nothing to do with Afghanistan and war on terror) clearly shows Indian influence behind it.

    Every Pakistani is right in opposing this non-sense.

  46. October 9th, 2009 5:35 am

    Problem text.

    (11) an evaluation of efforts undertaken by the Government of Pakistan to–
    (A) disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremist and terrorist groups in the FATA and settled areas;

    Seems to be no problem here. Work is being done, but in the light of recent events, I can say that our suffering is not over. More bomb blasts, more casualties. Another major military push is required to finish them off.

    (B) eliminate the safe havens of such forces in Pakistan;

    Quetta may be targetted if agreed on this one. And do we want another insurgency in Baluchistan.

    (C) close terrorist camps, including those of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed;

    Will amount to accepting that LeT and JeM are still free to recruit and train in Pakistan. Fact is that they are still very active and every now and then attacks on minorities are attributed on these groups. As long as there are madrassahs preaching Saudi version of Islam, these groups will remain,.

    (D) cease all support for extremist and terrorist groups;

    This may include a variety of groups active in Pakistan including some fringe religio-political parties.

    (E) prevent attacks into neighboring countries;

    Should we accept that Pakistan has any control over these groups? Pakistan has failed to stop them burning churches and killing their own citizens. How can we guarantee that India will be safe from them?

    (F) increase oversight over curriculum in madrassas, including closing madrassas with direct links to the Taliban or other extremist and terrorist groups; and

    This is an impossible task. Almost all madrassahs sympathise with Taliban.

    (G) improve counterterrorism financing and anti-money laundering laws, apply for observer status for the Financial Action Task Force, and take steps to adhere to the United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism;

    What happens to the Saudi money flooding in to madrassahs? That will never stop.

    (12) a detailed description of Pakistan’s efforts to prevent proliferation of nuclear-related material and expertise;

    This is where AQ Khan may be involved.I personally don’t see that it will help the americans to get any more information. They know the story already. But it may give them some solid evidence to use against Pakistan in the UN.

    (13) an assessment of whether assistance provided to Pakistan has directly or indirectly aided the expansion of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, whether by the diversion of United States assistance or the reallocation of Pakistan’s financial resources that would otherwise be spent for programs and activities unrelated to its nuclear weapons program;

    Indirectly, this money will be used to protect or further develop the nuclear program. India may test more devices. Being in the financial state that we are, we may have to use all available resource to respond to any such events.

    (14) a detailed description of the extent to which funds obligated and expended pursuant to section 202(b) meet the requirements of such section; and
    (15) an assessment of the extent to which the Government of Pakistan exercises effective civilian control of the military, including a description of the extent to which civilian executive leaders and parliament exercise oversight and approval of military budgets, the chain of command, the process of promotion for senior military leaders, civilian involvement in strategic guidance and planning, and military involvement in civil administration.

    Impossible. Gen Kayani has been a major player in almost all major decisions taken by the government so far. I don’t see that changing. And if that changes, given the current leadership of Pakistan, the country will definitely be more unstable.

    In short, I believe that this bill should not be accepted. Period.

  47. Shakeel says:
    October 9th, 2009 5:49 am

    I agree with Roxio and Shao Li.

    Plus, 7.5B over five years is, let’s face it, peanuts for what Pakistan has to do. I am surprised that Pak Governement, for only 1.5B a year, is ready to compromise so much. Yes Pakistan need economic assistance, but this can be easily done by increasing trade. Why isnt the US doing this?

    1.5B a year can easily be raised amongst us IF the governement shows in a transperent manner how it will be used. Pakistanis – for all the sins that we commit – are also one of the biggest hearted people and will help the country in any way we can. How many times the citizens have bailed past governements?

    There are already concerns about blackwaters guards roaming in Islamabad and now this. I am sorry if I cannot accept the bill. I wont accept the Indian bit in the bill and that word ‘after’ in the last close.

    Spare us the ISI and anti Pakistanis comment for those who oppose the bill. I have yet to see any concrete reasons why one should support the bill. For 1.5B only, some are ready to do anything. Quite cheap IMO

  48. Shakeel says:
    October 9th, 2009 5:55 am

    I forgot to add, in my previous post, that Pak Government has received other kinds of aid too but what have they done with it?

    This government is surviving just on aids and all they have to show for it is their luxurious trips abroad.

    When the EU granted them with 100millions euros in aid for the SWAT people, these ministers were spending left, right and center here, in Brussels. I am a witness of that.

    So this is how our Government uses the aid money. What guarantee do you have that they will use that small sum of 1.5B a year for good cause?

    The US is pretending that they will ‘look after’ the way the money is spent but they wont care less as their main objective would have already been achieved – to gain more control of the nation.

    This is how I see it.

  49. Memoona Saqlain says:
    October 9th, 2009 8:59 am

    It is very thoughtful of you that you have actually asked us to engage in a healthy discussion on this bill. After reading the whole bill I’ve come to the conclusion that we have been humiliated as a nation in more than one ways and it is due to our short sighted politicians who are still not ready to open their eyes to the truth. For instance in defining the term “counterinsurgency” it reads, “efforts to defeat organized movements that seek to overthrow the duly constituted governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan”, henceforth equating Zardari with Karzai, clearly mocking the Pakistanis and their elected representatives. We have a very different political situation in our country. However this particular phrase clearly indicates that Zardari like Karzai is backed by America and would be protected if people of Pakistan come out in the streets to overthrow his government Pakistanis unanimously voted against Musharraf by joining the Judiciary Movement.

    Secondly, does the phrase mean that America is on its way to create an Afghanistan like situation in Pakistan? Unfortunately people of Afghanistan are in perpetual state of a never ending war, where Americans first destroyed the country and now is trying to rebuild it with its own and European aid. Hence the bill itself mocks its intention of improving the condition of the people of Pakistan.

    It is true Pakistan needs economic support but surely it should come on the cost of our personal freedom where we would be deprived of our right to protest against the government policies simply because it would be taken as “an act of organized movement that seek to overthrow the duly constituted government”.

    I think all the official supporters of the bill are happy because it safeguards their interests.

  50. Mamdoh says:
    October 9th, 2009 10:35 am

    This bill is necessary for pakistna.. it should be accepted.. Who the hell is army to oppose this bill when democratically elected leaders are for it … put the bill in Parliament in Islamabad.. if its accepted .. it should be accepted.. Army has not required to give its opinion and rather force it …
    We need this money for development ..

  51. Khurram Farooqui says:
    October 9th, 2009 11:19 am

    This is for Lutf-ul-Islam:

    I am wondering what the issue is. Everything that you have highlighted as “problem text” is what I wish our government was doing in any case.

    I would like our government to defeat Al Qaeda and Taliban. I would like them to eliminate any safe havens for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I would like them to close any training camps. I would like them to cease support for any extremist or terrorist groups. I would like them to prevent attacks from on our soil, as well as prevent attacks from our soil on any other nation. I would like them to increase oversight over anti-terrorism financing and money laundering. I would like them to stop the policy of nuclear deterrance and nuclear proliferation.

    We are in this mess because our government and our military have always thought that the end justifies the means. We need to go away from that. Our relationship with India needs to take a different path, since this one has led us to destruction.

    Now I wish that we did that without requiring a carrot from the US. But my biggest fear that we Pakistanis ourselves don’t even agree that these things that I outlined above are what we should be doing.

  52. Muhammed Umer Farooq says:
    October 9th, 2009 11:29 am

    The Corps Commanders are salaried government employees whose salaries, perks and priveliges come from the taxes paid by the people of Pakistan. They have no authority whatsoever to comment on a policy matter.

    By assuming that they are the repositories of (their definition) of “national interest”, they have insulted the people of Pakistan, because it is Parliament, not a group of 15 government servants, that embodies the will and aspirations of the people of Pakistan.

    In any civilised country these Corps Commanders would have been reprimanded for this act of gross misconduct.

    Funny, these self-proclaimed Napoleons never thought of “national interest” when their former boss committed treason on 3 November 2007, killed Akbr Bugti, abducted Supreme Court judges and destroyed national institutions at whim.

    National interest, bah!

  53. Roxio says:
    October 9th, 2009 12:50 pm

    Umer,
    Parliament doesn’t mean anything in Pakistan.Its performance so far has been nill.Remember,when the Zardari government took over,Gillani proudly announced’the course of the war on terror’will be decided in the parliament.The fact is it has never been talked about in parlaiment let alone decided.

    Pakistanis have no trust in Zardari,he made himself PPP chairman for life and this is still clouded in mystery as it is alleged that he drafted the ‘waseeyat’ himself in consultation with Rahman Malik.

  54. Meengla says:
    October 9th, 2009 1:18 pm

    The so-called loss of sovereignty of Pakistan is no more than the strictures imposed upon Pakistan during the 80′s when the President of the US was required to annually ‘certify’ that Pakistan was not seeking nuclear weapons then (which Pakistan was, of course). Faithfully, the US Presidents kept lying about it by certifying the lies. This is no different. Both Pakistan and America are in a tight-hug, like they were in the 80s.

    The harsher ‘conditions’ in the K-L Bill are mostly for the ‘principled’ American domestic audience AND for the powerful Indian Lobby in Washington. In reality, it is non-binding on the Govt. of Pakistan. The language is too vague. The loopholes are the size of the 90′s Ozone gaps….

    By the way the Pakistani Army has no locus standi on this issue. Enough of their damned righteous selves. Their record is so poor–both in governance as Martial Law Admins and as ‘strategic planners’–that they better shut up.

    Advice to PPP: Call the Army’s Bluff! Either rule with real authority or take it back to the people in the form of new elections. Don’t worry, the Army is not exactly a fan of Nawaz Sharif either.

  55. -- NASEER AALI says:
    October 9th, 2009 1:21 pm

    Adil Najam Sahib, Hereunder I reproduce MYTH & FACT on the Kerry Lugar Bill via email received from Shaheryar Azhar, moderator, The Forum.
    ============================

    United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
    WASHINGTON, DC

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    October 8, 2009
    Contact: Frederick Jones, Communications Director, 202-224-4651

    Separating Myth from Fact on
    The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009

    October 8, 2009

    The United States wants to transform its relationship with Pakistan into a deeper, broader, long-term strategic engagement with the people of Pakistan. The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act (S.1707), also known as the Kerry-Lugar bill, was designed to help turn the page in our bilateral relationship by moving beyond a military relationship to one where the United States engages directly with the people of Pakistan as a true ally and friend.

    The heart of this bill gives the people of Pakistan $7.5 billion (Rs. 62,500 crore) over five years (2010-2014) in nonmilitary aid. This bill should be seen for what it is — a true sign of U.S. friendship to the people of Pakistan. The language in the bill was carefully negotiated between Senators Kerry and Lugar and Representative Berman with the concurrence of the U.S. State and Defense Departments. The bill was passed unanimously on a bipartisan basis by the U.S. Congress in September 2009.

    Here is what the bill really does.

    MYTH: The $7.5 billion (Rs. 62, 500 crores) authorized by the bill comes with strings attached for the people of Pakistan.
    FACT: There are no conditions on Pakistan attached to these funds.

    The $7.5 billion (Rs. 62,500 crore) authorized is all for non-military aid. These funds are unconditioned— they are a pledge of U.S. friendship to the Pakistani people. There are strict measures of financial accountability on these funds that Congress is imposing on the U.S. executive branch—not the Pakistani government, to make sure the money is being spent properly and for the purposes intended. Such accountability measures have been welcomed by Pakistani commentators to ensure that funds meant for schools, roads and clinics actually reach the Pakistani people and are not wasted.

    MYTH: The bill impinges on Pakistan’s sovereignty.
    FACT: Nothing in the bill threatens Pakistani sovereignty. Period.

    This bill is an extended hand of friendship, from the people of America to the people of Pakistan. It will fund schools, roads, energy infrastructure, and medical clinics. Even when Americans are going through a deep recession and tough economic times, the United States is pledging $7.5 billion (Rs. 62,500 crore) as a long-term commitment to Pakistan. Those seeking to undermine this partnership, to advance their own narrow partisan or institutional agendas, are doing a serious disservice to the people of the United States and of Pakistan.

    MYTH: The bill places onerous conditions on U.S. military aid to Pakistan that interfere in Pakistan’s internal affairs and imply that Pakistan supports terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
    FACT: The conditions on military aid reinforce the stated policy of the Government of Pakistan, major Pakistani opposition parties, and the Pakistani military and are the basis of bilateral cooperation between the United States and Pakistan.

    This bill does not discuss the levels of U.S. military aid to Pakistan, which will be determined year by year depending on events on the ground. The purpose of this bill is to focus on nonmilitary assistance to the people of Pakistan. To the extent that the bill authorizes military aid, the conditions require the President of the United States to certify to the U.S. Congress that:

    · Pakistan “is continuing to cooperate with the United States” on nuclear nonproliferation;
    · Pakistan “is making significant efforts towards combating terrorist groups,” including Al Qaeda, the Taliban and their affiliates; and
    · The Pakistani military is not “subverting the political or judicial processes” of the nation.

    Each of these conditions is the stated policy of the Pakistani government, the major Pakistani opposition parties, and the Pakistani military. The conditions ask nothing beyond what Pakistan’s own leaders have already promised. Pakistan and the United States share common goals to bolster security and democracy in the region and have been working together as allies towards these goals. The language in the bill reflects this understanding and commitment by the people of Pakistan in furthering regional stability and democracy.

    MYTH: The bill requires U.S. oversight on promotions and other internal operations of the Pakistani military.
    FACT: There is absolutely no such requirement or desire.

    This disinformation stems from an item to be included in one of the monitoring reports: it requires the Secretary of State to describe the extent to which civilian authorities exercise control over the Pakistani military. It does not require such control, nor does it place any restriction whatsoever on Pakistan. This benchmark, like all benchmarks in the monitoring reports, is informational. It presents a data-point on which U.S. policy-makers can base decisions.

    MYTH: The bill expands the Predator program of drone attacks on targets within Pakistan.
    FACT: There is absolutely nothing in the bill related to drones.

    This bill is about delivering economic development, education, health care, and other services to the people of Pakistan. There is nothing in this bill on the drone program.

    MYTH: The bill funds activities within Pakistan by private U.S. security firms, such as Dyncorp and Blackwater/Xe.
    FACT: The bill does not include any language on private U.S. security firms.

    The issue of how private security firms operate in Pakistan has nothing to do with this bill. The laws governing such firms – which are employed by many U.S. embassies and consulates throughout the world – are not affected by this bill in any way.

    MYTH: The bill aims for an expanded U.S. military footprint in Pakistan.
    FACT: The bill does not provide a single dollar for U.S. military operations.

    All of the money authorized in this bill is for non-military, civilian purposes.

    MYTH: The United States is expanding its physical footprint in Pakistan, using the bill as a justification for why the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad needs more space and security.
    FACT: As the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad works diligently over the next five years to properly distribute the $7.5 billion (Rs. 62,500 crore) to the people of Pakistan, it will need to take into account its own personnel and security needs to make sure it has the right staff with the right expertise on hand. This is common sense.

    As part of this bill, we are asking the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad to take an enormous amount of responsibility and oversight. The Embassy may need to add on additional staff to help implement billions of dollars aid. This is a logical step and should not be read as anything more than that. Such staffing decisions will follow the normal course of conduct, as governed by agreements between the Governments of Pakistan and the United States.

  56. Muhammed Umer Farooq says:
    October 9th, 2009 2:08 pm

    @roxio

    Disapproval of Zardari should not cloud our judgement of a far larger issue: supremacy of the people’s will over the vested interests of a few government servants.

    Parliament will only become effective when those who elect it expect it to become effective. Looking to a group of government servants for salvation and for protecting the “national interest” will only perpetuate their hegemony.

  57. Meengla says:
    October 9th, 2009 2:11 pm

    As to someone (or many-ones!) who says that currently the Parliament is irrelevant in Pakistan, I’d like to point their attention to what happened in March/April 2009: The powerful Talibans of Swat had intimidated Frontier’s ANP govt. so much that the govt. decided to give the Talibans whatever they wanted. In effect, ceding almost all Malakand Division to the Talibans. The legal cover came to Zardari to sign. But he shrewdly put it in front of the Parliament and where most people signed it. The lone principled voices of dissent were PMLN’s Ayaz Amir and MQM’s. PPP, against its natural instincts, decided to oblige its partner (ANP) in the Frontier.
    Parliament not only granted the ‘Nizam e Adl’ to the Talibans but also granted the now-ingrat Generals of the Pakistan Army moral and legal authority to go after the Talibans. So this ‘Zardari is all’ is a big lie. Zardari could not even send the ISI chief to India post-Mumbai tragedy last year.
    There is a lot of lies and disinformation going around. But what is becoming obvious to me is that the classic Pakistani Establishment (the Mullahs, the Army, the whole larger Right-Wing Security Setup) is trying to patch-up with PMLN (yeah, the so-called anti-Establishment Party) and dislodge the 4th PPP govt. in less than 4 decades. This only proves that the ‘real change’ in Pakistan is going to come from a PPP govt. as far as the current setup is concerned. Sure, Tonga Parties like Imran Khan’s can boast a lot but they, too, are likely to compromise when the bayonets are raised and boots are thumping the ground.

  58. Roxio says:
    October 9th, 2009 4:32 pm

    @Umer,
    Had this bill addressed only the civil sector and only the democratic government the corpse commanders may have stayed silent.But it does more than just that.

    In a rather disguised tone,it attacks the army as well as the ISI,firstly by indirectly implicating them to various ‘terror’ attacks here and there and then warning them to stay away from such acts or this will happen or that will happen.
    Obviously the corpse commanders had to come out with a voiced opinion since the bill addresses the army.

    Israel’s Mossad has an official policy of sending death squads around the world killing people everywhere.They have killed notable people in many countries of the world in the name of self defense and continue to do that even today.
    Yet Israel continues to receive upwards of $4 billion a year ,year after year,from US with little or no conditions ever attached.Do you ever hear of Mr.Kerry or Mr.Lugar or any other Senator criticizing them for their actions?
    There is a lot of hypocrisy in this bill.

  59. Rammal says:
    October 9th, 2009 4:35 pm

    @Mamdoh: You can’t develop anything if you can’t earn money. You should be ashamed. Begging others to give you money so that you can do “development”?.

  60. Kacheri says:
    October 9th, 2009 7:55 pm

    tell you what … with this bill Zardari and PPP will become ‘heros’ in front of the awam. $7.5 billion over 5 years just for social development. How nice is that. As soon as this bill was announced the KSE was flooded with $250 million of foreign investment within a single week, what does that tell you?. Credit rating of Pakistan all over the world suddenly JUMPED!

    I think this bill signifies that America is finally ready to say sorry –quoting Hilary Clinton– and do something for the people!, not just use us to send armies into our own provinces (as in 2004) in exchange of some military aid. None of the conditions are new, and the ones that are, they downplay military role in Pakistani politics, how f-ing nice is that!!.

    I know which clause in it burns the army the most. The one where none of this aid is to be spent on the ‘military’.

  61. ARSHAD says:
    October 9th, 2009 11:36 pm

    HUSAIN HAQANI WRITES ARTICLE DEFENDING HIMSELF (Hilarious).

    Given the great anger at him in Pakistan over Kerry-Lugar Bill, Husain Haqqani has now done the ultimate spin doctoring. He has written an article himself, making up quotes from ‘unnamed’ embassy staffers praising him and had it published in The News. This is really really stooping low.
    http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=24939

    I know from my sources in the Pakistan Embassy that the staff is really mad at this deception and lie and once exposed this could be the end of Mr. Haqqani!

  62. ARSHAD says:
    October 9th, 2009 11:42 pm

    B y the way, this ghost written article by Haqqani came after Shaheen Sehbai’s cutting piece, also in The News:
    http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=24919

    By Shaheen Sehbai

    ISLAMABAD: Intense search has begun in political and media circles to find out who is the father of the Pakistan Army and ISI-specific conditions in the Kerry-Lugar Bill, which ultimately led to the assertive statement issued by the 122nd corps commanders’ meeting on Wednesday. But the search will not be too difficult.

    All fingers point to the Pakistani lobbyists in Washington who were hired by the Pakistan Embassy after thePPP government came into power in 2008. These lobbyists, including Mark A Siegel and Cassidy and Associates, were supposed to work for Pakistan and were paid million of dollars, but they were actually lobbying against Pakistan and were trying to get anti-Pakistan conditions inserted in the Kerry-Lugar Bill.

    Experts, who know Washington, say the lobbyists do only what their client tells them. In the case of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, the client has been the Pakistan Embassy, so the buck will have to stop at the Pakistani mission in Washington DC.

    But according to one expert, the details of all these Army-specific conditions were spelled out in a well-publicised book published by a Pakistani scholar-cum-journalist-cum-diplomat, way back in January 2006.

    The language in which the scholar, Husain Haqqani, now Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington and the main proponent of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, had urged Washington to put these conditions on Pakistan would shock everyone, when read in today’s context.

    For instance, the book ëPakistan between Mosque and Militaryí states categorically that “the United States must use its aid as a lever to influence Pakistan’s domestic policies.” The book states: “Washington should no longer condone the Pakistani military’s support of Islamic militants, its use of its intelligence apparatus for controlling domestic politics, and its refusal to cede power to a constitutional democratic government.”

    At another place the book says: “Because Washington has attached a few conditions to US aid, the spending patterns of Pakistan’s government have not changed significantly. The country’s military spending continues to increase…”

    On pages 327 to 329, Haqqani says: “Unlike governments in other Muslim countries like Egypt and Turkey, Pakistan’s government – particularly its military – has encouraged political and radical Islam, which otherwise has a relatively narrow base of support. Democratic consensus on limiting or reversing Islamisation would gradually roll back the Islamist influence in Pakistani public life. Islamists would maintain their role as a minority pressure group representing a particular point of view, but they would stop wielding their current disproportionate influence over the country’s overall direction.

    “The United States can help contain the Islamists’ influence by demanding reform of those aspects of Pakistan’s governance that involve the military and security services. Until now, the United States has harshly berated corrupt or ineffective Pakistani politicians but has only mildly criticised the military’s meddling. Between 1988 and 1999, when civilians ostensibly governed Pakistan, US officials routinely criticised the civilians’ conduct but refrained from commenting on the negative role of the military and the intelligence services despite overwhelming evidence of that role. ISI manipulation of the 1988, 1990, and 1997 elections went unnoticed publicly by the United States while the Pakistan military’s recitation of politicians’ failings was generally accepted without acknowledging the impacts of limits set for the politicians by the military. The United States appears to accept the Pakistani military’s falsified narrative of Pakistan’s recent history, at least in public. It is often assumed that the military’s intervention in politics is motivated by its own concern over national security and the incompetence of politicians. That the military might be a contributor to political incompetence and its desire to control national security policies might be a function of its pursuit of domestic political power are hardly ever taken into account.

    “Washington should no longer condone the Pakistani military’s support of Islamic militants, its use of its intelligence apparatus for controlling domestic politics, and its refusal to cede power to a constitutional democratic government. As an aid donor, Washington has become one of Pakistan’s most important benefactors, but a large part of US economic assistance since September 11, 2001 has been used to pay down Pakistan’s foreign debt. Because Washington has attached a few conditions to US aid, the spending patterns of Pakistan’s government have not changed significantly. The country’s military spending continues to increase, and spending for social services is well below the level required to improve living conditions for ordinary Pakistanis. The United States must use its aid as a lever to influence Pakistan’s domestic policies. Even though Musharraf’s selective cooperation in hunting down Al-Qaeda terrorists is a positive development, Washington must not ignore Pakistan’s state sponsorship of Islamist militants, its pursuit of nuclear weapons and missiles at the expense of education and healthcare, and its refusal to democratise; each of these issues is directly linked to the future of Islamic radicalism.

    “The United States clearly has a few good short-term policy options in relation to Pakistan. American policymakers should endeavour to recognise the failings of their past policies and avoid repeating their mistakes. The United State has sought short-term gains from its relationship with Pakistan, inadvertently accentuating that country’s problems in the process. Pakistan’s civil and military elite, on the other hand, must understand how their three-part paradigm for state and nation building has led Pakistan from one disaster to the next. Pakistan was created in a hurry and without giving detailed thought to various aspects of national and state building. Perhaps it is time to rectify that mistake by taking a long-term view. Both Pakistan’s elite and their US benefactors would have to participate in transforming Pakistan into a functional, rather than ideological, state.”

    Once these considered suggestions and proposals made by the current Pakistan ambassador are analysed in today’s context, there will be few left who would continue to search for the source of the insulting conditions which the Kerry-Lugar Bill has imposed on Pakistan.

  63. Aqil says:
    October 10th, 2009 3:50 am

    The tone and some of the conditionalities have put a blot on what is actually a step in the right direction. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be such a bad bill, and the US is also trying to address the traditional Pakistani complaint that aid money in the past only went to the military or politicians instead of reaching the people. So in some sense there is an overreaction in Pakistan, but the bill is also not without its problems.

    I think there are 4 major issues, and these are also unfortunate mistakes purely from the point of view of US interests, though some Americans may not see it that way.

    1. Parts of the bill sound more like a charge sheet rather than a bill aimed at developing a friendly relationship. Apart from the way this is offending some Pakistanis and is therefore a bad choice of words from the point of view of politics, the other problem is that given that the US itself played a part in creating the present mess (by supporting these militants in the 1980s and then suddenly leaving as soon as the Russians moved out of Afghanistan), this tone smacks of self-righteousness. A somewhat less accusatory tone would have been more helpful.

    2. I am rather surprised that the US included those clauses about civilian control of the military. This is hard to understand because the US can’t (and shouldn’t even try to)
    really micromanage Pakistan’s internal dynamics. If the military decides to intervene in politics and enjoys public support, there is nothing the US can do to stop
    it. On the other hand, when the public is strongly against the military stepping in, then the military is likely to stay out anyway, and many Pakistanis might even be ok with a discrete, behind the scenes American nudge to the military to stay out of politics. Why unnecessarily touch the civil vs. military issue in a somewhat crude manner in this K-L bill and draw clearly avoidable criticism when this clause doesn’t really promote any American interest?

    If the rumour that Haqqani and Zardari themselves urged the Americans to include these provisions on civilian supremacy is true, then the Americans have made a judgement error by taking this request seriously.

    3. The US may be justifiably concerned about the lack of the military’s clarity on distancing itself from groups like LT, but it is going about this in a very counter-productive way. The sensible approach is to recognize the regional context of the intelligence wars being played between Pakistan and India, rather than singling out the ISI. The Americans should try to get Pakistan and India on the negotiating table and agree that from now on, neither side will try to destabilize the other country or have links with any groups involved in such activities. They should also try to develop a credible regional mechanism for ensuring that Afghan soil does not get used as a battle ground for turf wars between regional intelligence agencies. This way, American concerns about Pakistani military’s links with LT etc can be adequately addressed in a way that also simultaneously addresses Pakistan’s legitimate worries about India’s activities in Afghanistan. Such an approach is the only way to create a relationship based on mutual trust where both sides are willing to understand each other’s security interests.

    By speaking the Indian language the US is doing the exact opposite, which is not only a sure way to fuel suspicions in Pakistan, but also encourages hawkish behaviour by India.

    4. The nuclear proliferation issue could have been kept outside the K-L bill. Any American concerns about proliferation could have been taken up with Pakistan separately. And in doing so, the focus should remain on ensuring that there is no proliferation in the future, instead of harping about access to AQ Khan, when they know it’s not going to happen.

  64. Shakeel says:
    October 10th, 2009 6:33 am

    I dont understand why some friends here are saying that the Army has no right whatsoever to have a say regarding this bill.

    Few things to consider IMO:

    1. Our democratic elected politicians are not perfect. In fact, it mostly due to them that there is chaos but let’ s not go there. Why should we solely trust them? It’s good for the country is all insitutions can have a say on the bill.

    2. In any other country, the Army/security agencies would have a say in such a bill in any environment; let alone in the environment that Pakistan is in (insurgency, taliban etc .. )

    3. Our not so trustworthy relationship with the US.

    These are some important reasons why the Army is and should have a say in this Bill.

  65. Naseer says:
    October 10th, 2009 8:34 am

    I found the story about Haqqani – really, BY Haqqani – quite funny. But if he has to defend himself now by fabricating stories about himself that are so thinly veiled defense of himself then things must be bad for him and there mus be a lot of pressure on his.

    I also spoke to a Foreign Office friend now serving in the New York Consulate and he was also embarrassed by this story. Anyone who knows Sami Abraham of Geo knows that this could not have been written by him and anyone who has even once met Haqqani knows that it is really written by him. Sad that haqqani had t stoop so low.

  66. Mamdoh says:
    October 10th, 2009 10:13 am

    well said khurram,
    The biggest fears is we pakistanis are not aligned on points raised in your comments ( rooting ot teror infrastructure, Strategic depth in afganistan, kashmir etc.). People in Pakistan are self proclaimed messiahs for muslims in the world.. People has taken clasue for people of kashmir, people of palestine for no good reason.. The kashmir crisis will never end as now it is clear US is no more giving military aid to Paksitan Army & this insurgency cannot be funded on our self money or money of KSA. best resolution for kasmir will be Accepting LOC as International border. we are already on distruction path..

  67. AHR says:
    October 10th, 2009 5:03 pm

    @Naseer
    I have personally met Mr. Sami Ibrahim and I can vouch that the article that was posted in The News and on http://new-pakistan.com was written by Mr. Sami Ibrahim himself.

    Pakistan is struggling. We have over 170 million people. Roughly 2/3 of this population which means 113 million Pakistani’s live under 160rs day. Pakistani’s like you and me do not require this aid. It is the slums in Karachi, the open sewer in Lahore, the open stove in Quetta and the required roof over the house in Peshawar that desperately need this aid money. This aid money if utilized smartly, can have a multiplier effect for our Human Development Index (HDI). The language in the Bill poses a problem. We need to rectify it it, not reject it. Read my article to get a different perspective to all the hate which is spewing out of control.

    http://www.ahraza.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/lets-not-kill-the-moment/

  68. S.S.M. says:
    October 10th, 2009 5:19 pm

    I hope we can get past these slogans and actually read the Bill that you have kindly posted and have a serous debate on what is in the Bill and not on cheap shots like our anchors and columnists are having.

    ATP you shoudl contact Senator Kerry and ask him to clarify the points that are being raised against this Bill. I hear he wants to come to Pakistan. He also needs to make his position clear and I think he can convince Pakistanis that teh intention is not to colonize but to help the people of Pakistan.

  69. Aamir Ali says:
    October 10th, 2009 5:27 pm

    The Army are the ones on the ground taking the bullets, so they have a right to express an opinion on this bill and to lobby for their view. Only a fool would entrust Pakistani politicians with complet authority over the nation’s defense and foreign policies. The Nizam-e-Adl debacle in Swat is the latest example in exposing Pakistani politicians who are only jalsa and talk show warriors.

    My only beef with this bill is that it pits civilians against the military, by giving unconditional cash to civilians and conditional cash to military. It completely ignores the enormous corruption that Pakistani politicians and bureaucrats routinely engage in.

    With this bill we will have a corrupt civilians on one hand, flush with American dollars, pressuring and pushing the military, which may or may not get American dollars based on whether civilians and America is happy or not. Sounds a bad arrangement to me.

  70. Firdous says:
    October 10th, 2009 6:37 pm

    With the Taliban killing Pakistanis everywhere and attacking the GHQ, I am surprised that our anger is directed to the Americans who are actually trying to help us. Instead of condemning the Taliban

    Amazing.

  71. Muhammed Umer Farooq says:
    October 10th, 2009 9:11 pm

    Aamir Ali,

    The Army is doing the job that it is paid for. Every Army in the world does the same. It is no “ihsan” on the people of Pakistan.

    And don’t forget, Pakistan is Army is jointly responsible for the religious extremism that is tearing Pakistan apart today (America and Saudi Arabia being the other guilty parties). Remember “strategic depth”?

    If the Army has views on a certain subject, there are constitutionally specified means to express them. Issuing press statements at odds with government policy is not professionalism, it is gangsterism.

  72. afpakwar says:
    October 11th, 2009 1:16 am

    A critique of US Senator Kerry’s “Myths and Facts” press release, to which one of the comments refers, is provided as Truly Separating Myths from Facts.

  73. montagnard says:
    October 11th, 2009 4:26 am

    This bill is full of shit.

    A. SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. (2) COUNTERINSURGENCY – The bill used the term “… duly constituted Governments of Pakistan …”. I wonder why the US Congress whose power is derived from “We the People” , would not state something like “Government of Pakistan democratically elected government by its people”. The English synonyms for the phrase “duly constituted” are: absolute, ascendant, authoritarian, authoritative, authorized, autocratic, etc. This “duly constituted” government implies a non respresentative puppet of USA.

    B. SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. (3) COUNTERTERRORISM.— states “… foreign terrorist organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) …” Basically, US Secretary of State can proclaim anyone to be terrorist organization on behalf of Pakistan. Pakistan has no say in it ! What a crock !

    C. FATA FRONTIER CRIMES REGULATION.—

    D. SEC.3 Findings: “The people of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the United States share a long history of friendship and comity …”. Long history of friendship and comity was I buried somewhere for longtime and missed out his cozy and l-o-n-g history. I still see as late as last week priority and accelerated deportation of Pakistanis from USA even those with Green Cards for their “crime” of being Pakistani. You don’t find much in media the massing deportations, incarceration, humiliation of Citizens of Pakistan in USA. Nazi did the same to Jews when their Reich (motherland) was threatened by Jewish “terrorists”. The Nazi’s now are collectively: FBA, ICE, CBP, ATF, TSA, DHS, DOJ, …. the black shirts of the USA. I would love to know the official statistics from Madam Secretary about the treatment of Pakistani citizens in USA after September 2001.

    F. SEC.3 (6) Despite killing or capturing hundreds of al Qaeda operatives and other terrorists—including major al Qaeda leaders … the FATA, parts of the NWFP, Quetta in Balochistan, and Muridke in Punjab remain a sanctuary for al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, the Terikh-e Taliban and affiliated groups from which these groups organize terrorist actions against Pakistan and other countries.

    G. (8) On March 27, 2009, President Obama noted, ‘‘Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safehaven in Pakistan.’’.
    Can I dare to mentioned those intelligence estimates about WMDs of Iraq, Iran’s battle ready nuclear warheads, imminent collapse of Islamabad. These people (US intelligence assh*les are pathelic liars full of %H!t.

    H. (10) During 2008 and 2009, the people of Pakistan have been especially hard hit by rising food and commodity prices and severe energy shortages, with 2⁄3 of the population living on less than $2 a day and 1⁄5 of the population living below the poverty line according to the United Nations Development
    Program.
    There is no work on as to what caused it. All studies point to bad governance by the US puppet regime in Islamabad. And partly because of US forced “war” on Pakistan. Pakistan being forced to act as “chokidaar” for the US interests.

    …. more later

  74. Tariq J Qureshi says:
    October 11th, 2009 6:00 am

    Looking at the bill as a American, I see nothing wrong with this.

    Hey if I am the one giving you ‘my’ money then I dictate terms whether you like it or not. Tough shit.

    If you guys are that honorable and need our respect then stop begging for hand-downs. If you want our money, you have to honestly be ‘my bitch’

    Sorry if it hurts you….

  75. majid khan says:
    October 11th, 2009 8:40 am

    It indeed very critical time in the history of Pakstan. It is the duty of Electronic and Print Media to preset actuall text of Karry Logar Bill.
    Pakitanies have to know that what America wants from us and what is the fact.

  76. ASAD says:
    October 11th, 2009 11:16 am

    Very important and interesting news from Washington. This after the fake article that Hussain Haqqani wrote about himself and got published under someone else’s name yesterday.

    This from THE NATION:
    http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/11-Oct-2009/Is-Dr-Lodhis-takeover-in-Washington-imminent

    Is Dr Lodhi’s takeover in Washington imminent?
    Published: October 11, 2009

    ISLAMABAD – As anger mounts in official circles over Ambassador Haqqani’s questionable role in the drafting of the KLB, it has been learnt from reliable inside sources that Prsident Zardari has risen to his ambassador’s defence. This has prevented his immediate removal despite many powerful organisations of the state demanding his recall immediately. Credible rumours tell of an alert being sent to Dr Maleeha Lodhi to be on standby as Haqqani’s replacement. Dr Lodhi’s record in previous ambassadorial stints in Washington and London has generally been positively recognised in Pakistan.
    However, what was almost a certainty on Friday night seems to have been postponed but only temporarily as part of a compromise between the Establishment and the Presidency. This, according to knowledgeable sources, will allow Haqqani a face-saving exit in the form of a resignation within a few weeks. Apparently, hard evidence relating to Haqqani’s efforts to have the clauses targeting the Pakistan army included in the KLB were provided to the civilian leadership. This, along with earlier question marks relating to the Ambassador’s actions, such as the revelation of the confidential letter, on an Indian television channel, to the ISI Chief and the Foreign Secretary; and the granting of visas “at ambassadorial discretion” to a host of Americans, some of whom had earlier been deported, has made it difficult for the Ambassador to retain the trust of most of the state decision makers – beyond the President.
    Interestingly, according to inside sources, Ambassador Haqqani was promised a lucrative office in Islamabad in mid 2008 if he would give up the ambassadorial position and return to the country. However, some of his friends in the Capital had warned him that he was being lured into a trap and should stay away from Pakistan. The likelihood now is that Mr Haqqani would remain in Washington even after his resignation as his removal has only temporarily been postponed.

  77. Haroon says:
    October 11th, 2009 11:41 am

    I think it will be good is Haqqani is removed as Ambassador. He has been an embarrassment.

    But getting Maliha Lodhi back is not the solution. It then becomes like musical chairs and she becomes the permanent ambassador to the US. It sends wrong signal about Pakistan.

    We need a non-political, competent and strong Pakistani whose committment to Pakistan is beyond question and who is politically non-partisan. Either a strong career diplomat or a totally independent high caliber person whose Pakistan committment is very strong and widely recognized. the problem with Haqqani was always that he was more committed to his own self than to Pakistan. The biggest test for new Ambassador is that he or she should really be PAKISTAN CENTERED and seen to be strong champion for Pakistan.

  78. ASAD says:
    October 11th, 2009 12:29 pm

    Another report on How Husain Haqqani is going to be let go because of this:

    http://www.daily.pk/mr-haqqani-to-be-fired-for-“urging-the-us-to-include-anti-army-clauses-in-the-bill”-12066/

    Ambassador Haqqani is in deep trouble. He is about to be fired. Hussain Haqqani: The most reviled Ambassador anywhere. Mr. Haqqani has constituencies. Slowly but surely has alienated all his pillars of support. Of course the Pakistani politicians, the media and the Army never had any love lost to him. Mr. Haqqani rose to the position of ambassadorship on the shoulders of his wife Ms. Ispahani who had contact with the American establishment.
    Many say that he orchestrated the presidency of Mr. Zardari after the death of Ms. Bhutto. He was first appointed as an advisor to the Pakistani president. Within a few days, Mr. Haqqani got appointed as the Pakistani Ambassador to the US (or as make fun of him saying that he is the US Ambassador to Pakistan in Washington).
    Sources said President Zardari also talked on phone with the country’s ambassador in the US, Hussain Haqqani, and urged him to take up the matter with the US administration.
    Some analysts believe Mr Haqqani may lose his office for allegedly “urging the US administration to include anti-army clauses in the bill”.
    A rebuttal to Mr. Haqqani: US policy and Pakistan’s drift. Over the years, Mr. Haqqani has written a lot against Pakistan
    Mr. Haqqani has made a career out of blaming Pakistan and writing against the Pakistani Army. He has made very strange statements which were more loyal to America than the country he was hired to represent. He repeatedly spoke at AIPAC, JINSA and the Hudson institute using the pronoun “us” and “we” (acting as an American) to describe how the US should use aid to influence Pakistani policy. On page 191 of his book “Military to the Mosque” he clearly enunciates his philosophy.
    President Zardari, and Prime Minister Gilani and the PPP are very upset at him for misleading them about the bill. The Pakistani foreign office is furious at him for keeping him out of the loop. The American sponsors of the bill, Senators Lugar and Biden have been stung by the criticism of the Kerry Lugar bill and dislike being embarrassed. Mr. Haqqani has lost all credibility. he led the US Congress down the primrose path, and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson and others wont easily forget Mr. Haqqani’s antics. According to the ISPR the final version of the bil was not the noe that was telegraphed to the Army.
    Analysts are reporting that Mr. Haqqani is history
    All this makes Mr. Haqqani a square peg in a round hole–Rupee News would be very surprised if Mr. Haqqani survives the fiasco. Even if he does, he should be brushing up his resume–he has lost all credibility in Washington. He is seen as a liability “full of sound and fur, signifying nothing”.
    The report published in the very pro-American and pro-Indian newspaper called Dawn.com clearly spells out ouster of Mr. Haqqani.
    The government has decided to take up the Kerry-Lugar Bill with the US administration in a bid to avoid confrontation with other political parties and military authorities, who strongly oppose some of its clauses.
    Sources in the presidency said leaders of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), who gathered in the Presidency for the third consecutive day on Friday, reviewed the government’s stance on the issue, especially after opposition from the military authorities and political parties.
    There were reports that Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani, who has voiced concern about the bill, and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani did not attend the meeting.
    Officials in the presidency said Gen Kayani was not scheduled to meet President Zardari.
    Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who flew back from Washington earlier during the day, briefed the President about the US administration’s point of view.
    Sources said President Zardari also talked on phone with the country’s ambassador in the US, Hussain Haqqani, and urged him to take up the matter with the US administration.
    Some analysts believe Mr Haqqani may lose his office for allegedly “urging the US administration to include anti-army clauses in the bill”.
    However, they said, Pakistan first had to convince the US administration that some controversial clauses in the bill had hurt the sentiments of the army and political circles. After that, the US administration would have to persuade the Congress to revise the bill.
    “The whole process … will take at least 18 months,” a political analysts said.
    The foreign minister assured parliament that the government would not take any decision against national interest or the country’s sovereignty.
    “Our government will never surrender our sovereignty. We shall make decisions in the national interest,” he said.
    According to a press release issued by the presidency, President Asif Zardari held a meeting which was attended by federal ministers Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Qamer Zaman Kaira, Nazer Mohammad Gondal, Babar Awan and Naveed Qamer, Ms Mehreen Anwar Raja, Farhatullah Babar, spokesperson for the president, and Rukhshana Bangash, MNA, to discuss the present political situation.
    Presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar said previous US aid packages negotiated by the Musharraf regime had similar clauses, but the army had never complained about them.
    “Why this protest now?” he asked. “There are proper forums like the defence committee of the cabinet and the ministry of defence for communication of such views — why this was bypassed, I don’t know.”
    FOREIGN MINISTER’S APPEAL: The foreign minister urged parliament to analyse the Kerry-Lugar bill with an open mind.
    The army’s unusual public criticism of a diplomatic matter appears to have created a rift with the PPP-led fragile government, which has rejected opposition complaints that the bill undermined sovereignty.
    However, analysts do not foresee an immediate showdown between the military, which has vowed to stay out of politics, and the government. US govt to be asked to remove strings
    Mr. Haqqani spoke to JINSA and AIPAC and charged AIPAC 175,000 to develop an Anti-Pakistan strategy for them. Most of his own workings showed up in the Kerry Lugar bill
    Developing a New U.S. Policy toward Pakistan $175,000
    Husain Haqqani will lead an effort to develop new ideas for U.S. policy toward Pakistan. He will organize working groups of U.S. and Pakistani experts and commission papers. He will write a blueprint for a U.S. policy to encourage Pakistan to adopt a more moderate and democratic political system. The Project’s findings will appear in a series of monographs and a policy report

  79. Daktar says:
    October 11th, 2009 1:30 pm

    Something is clearly afoot with Haqqani.

    Just saw him on CNN and because I had seen these comments a little while ago, I was intrigued.

    he was clearly on the defensive and very unlike him was trying to put this view of strong anti-Indian and even criticizing the US. Seemed like he was trying to prove some point to Pakistani viewers about the criticism on him recently rather than to CNN or US viewers. But did seem like he had arranged the interview to “clear” himself.

    Very very interesting how intrigue works.

  80. Cathy Eubanks says:
    October 11th, 2009 7:51 pm

    Sorry I messed up and need to clarify and complete my statement:

    Hey Pakistan Guys: I followed a link to here. Quite contrary to what our [American] media portray you [Pakistan] as a “filthy, backward, stupid, terrorists or terrorist sympathizers” by people in our filtered corporate media, I found you guys [Pakistani] to be intellectual, tolerant, down-to-earth, and freedom loving folks. Unfortunately, we just read or hear what scums Like Jane Perlez present to us – a biased, bigoted, filtered and one side opinion. Tou guys need to run your country that is in your best interest not according to diktats of the USA.

    My sincere advise to you: Do a free debate and discussion for every matter but only take such actions that are in your [Pakistan] best interest, not in the interest of USA, UK, France, India, and so on. If you Guys show independence (whether at the cost of no US / Foreign grants / money), you’ll me well respected and bullies like US Administration and India would stay away from you. ;)

  81. Nabeel Raza says:
    October 11th, 2009 10:02 pm

    I think people have vented their anger over the BIll and now things will begin quietening down very quickly.

    I also think that the anger against Haqqani is unjustified, whatever his personal history he has not been a bad ambassador.

  82. Aamir Ali says:
    October 12th, 2009 5:30 am

    @Tariq J Qureshi

    US has volunteered this bill, Pakistan never asked for it. The reason US had written this bill is that US needs Pakistan in order to win war on terror. Additionally US needs to send money to Pakistan to support its war in Afghanistan.

    So Pakistan is not your bitch, and doesn’t need to be your bitch. Stop talking like a white dude since you aren’t one and instead look like a bad coconut.

  83. ASAD says:
    October 12th, 2009 12:43 pm

    Husain Haqqani is still in hot water despite his efforts. Seems all the stories he is planting are not working at all. The Dawn just also reported that he is being thrown out.

    “ISLAMABAD: After strong criticism on the Kerry-Lugar bill in Pakistan, the government has decided to replace Pakistan’s ambassador to the US Hussain Haqqani and the announcement in this respect is expected within the next two days.

    Well informed official sources have been quoted as saying that the country’s ambassador to the US would be appointed as a spokesman of the Presidency.

    Sources said the announcement with regards to the replacement of Haqqani would be made within 48 hours. Hussain Haqqani is being replaced over the inclusion of some controversial clauses in the Kerry-Lugar bill.

    The positions of the Spokesman Presidency Farhatullah Babar and the Pakistan Peoples Party Information Secretary Fouzia Wahab would also be changed, sources added.”

  84. Viqar Minai says:
    October 12th, 2009 3:27 pm

    It seems to me that rather than the government getting clearance from the US in regard to what military appointments are OK, it now has to be getting clearance from the army in regards to who can man what post in the political administration.

    Oh well …

  85. Syed Javaid Kazmi says:
    October 13th, 2009 9:55 am

    Kerry Lugar Bill is naked sword on Our Great Army or defense forces.I dont know why Hussain Haqani didnt interpret the voice of the Pakistan people.All American coalition countries and especially India and Israel put blame on ISI while Raw,Mossad,CIA,KGB all working for the sack of their homeland they never targeted or running by the civilian people but they are forcing Pakistan to put ISI civilian chief and the Pak Government how allowed them to exploit Pak Army and ISI as well.Its ridiculous and unable to understand where our civilian government so called democratic government taking us.Either they want us to obey all wrong or right of USA.Every country has their own purposes which cant share with the civilian people and especially Pak civilian untrustworthy,looters,stealer they can sale every thing just for money.
    The people of Pakistan has now the responsibility to record their protest we can live with out American Aid we have to get stand on this point otherwise People of Pakistan will pay for against this bill.

  86. Salman Ahmed says:
    October 14th, 2009 1:34 am

    It is now time for us to stand on our own feet. Our rulers must curtail their lavish expenditures charged to the national exchequer. If we all pay Zakat with true zeal and spirit, our Country would NOT need any financial support from any country and or lending agencies.

    Our Country is God gifted with abundance of natural resources. Lets explore, refine and use them diligently.

    SAY NO TO KERRY LUGER BILL.

  87. ARSHED K. MAHMUD says:
    October 14th, 2009 10:04 am

    Lets not kid ourselves ladies and gentlemen, there is no civillian government in Pakistan the country is being run by the establishment in particular by the army. Is there any difference between the Musharraf days and Zardari days? No why should there be? The game is the same just the puppets have changed. All that has happened is that instead of PML mob PPP mob has become the civilian face of a military government. Why do I say this? Just read:

    After Zia, Benazir took over with 58. 2 (b) in place with an unelected President having powers to dismiss the elected civilian government. Every time the Army felt that the government needs a change they twisted the President ear and got him to sack the government on charges of corruption etc. So Benazir’s first term ended like that. Election was held Nawaz Sharif came to power, he tried to repeal 58. 2 (b) to remove the power to dismiss the Prime Minister from the President, well guess what happened? President thought his government was very corrupt so out he went. Election again now Benazir is elected (surprise) back in power.

    Murtaza Bhutto campaigns looks threatening particularly to those who were involved in the murder of Mr. Z A Bhutto, he is killed by security forces. Benazir wanted to hire foreign experts to investigate Murtaza’s murder; guess what President thought her government is corrupt again so out she goes. Election again Nawaz back again. It should be noted that each time a government was sacked and elections were held it was never possible that the people could elect the outgoing party or leader because that would defeat the purpose of sacking the government. How can that be possible? Well simple, by rigging elections each time to bring in the desired party or leader.

    When Nawaz came in the last time his election was so badly rigged that he achieved two-thirds majority empowering him to repeal 58. 2 (b) that he did. Now there was a serious problem for the army they could no longer go to the President to get the Prime Minister sacked to make matters worse Article 6 was also restored whereby a usurper would be punishable by death! Now this was a big problem army is back to 1973 once again so nothing short of a full fledged military coup could forcibly remove Nawaz so there was a coup again. Same effort was made to “eliminate ” Nawaz by a judicial murder as was made for Mr. Z A Bhutto where they had suceeded with their master’s blessing. Nawaz escaped that fate because President Clinton said categorically “we will not like to see any harm come to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif” this was sufficient to put an end to the proceedings of a Kangroo Court that was trying him. Unfortunately Zia and his co- murderer judges in the court were not restrained in the same way by the US.

    Today we have 17th amendment instead of 58. 2 (b) but is exactly the same and the PPP government is again the same puppet we have seen in the past.

    So let us not feel sympathetic towards the army the wolf is hiding in the 17th amendment cloak this time. We still have military government in power.

  88. Tariq J Qureshi says:
    October 19th, 2009 5:56 am

    Looking at the bill as a American, I see nothing wrong with this. US Government is giving you ‘my’ money, and therefore can dictate terms whether you like it or not. Tough shit.

    If you guys are that honorable, and could have managed your budgets from day-go this would be needed.

    You choose corrupt leaders and then tell the world you are mature and honorable…oh come on look at your dear President-Zardari who has 5 Billion dollar property in USA, Yet another ten Towers /Building in Dubai that he & BB owned. Have you seen BB’s villa on the Beach in Dubai where Bilawal- your future PPP chief and his sisters live. Mr Z. has over a Billion Dollar cash that was released from swiss banks when your leaders (Chowdreys) created and supported the NRO to pardon BB and NS & all ‘todays’ entire leadership. You never questioned your leaders raping your country and stealing the wealth that they moved abroad.

    If you had the wealth they have stolen from you, you wouldn’t have any use of our ‘aid’ .

    So stop begging for hand-downs and you don’t need to feel the humiliation of KLB

    Sorry if it hurts you…

  89. Musaafir says:
    October 19th, 2009 10:31 am

    This bill is not some form of charity that is being handed out to Pakistan. It is payment for a service that Pakistan is expected to perform to further the interests of the US in the region. Kerry and/or Lugar, even though representing uncle Sam in this endeavor, are not the mamay (uncles) of the Pakistani people, and hence do not have the best interest of Pakistanis in their caring hearts. They have devised a deal which is a payment for the blood and tears, the people of Pakistan are spilling for America’s strategic interests. Nothing less and nothing more.

  90. Aisha says:
    October 20th, 2009 1:23 am

    @Musaafir:

    I am very confused by your comment. In regard to the bill, on one hand you say that this is not charity it is fee for service (This is absolutely true). On the other hand you complain about the U.S. self interest of the bill at the expense of the people of Pakistan. Look at is as a fee for service contract. I personally would rather earn my money than have it handed to me which would only make me feel indebted forever so it’s good that it is not charity. The U.S. is not looking at it as charity. It is payment for services promised and renderred.

    However, it is in fact a generous fee for the services being asked in regard to maintaining viligent efforts against terrorists and their organizations within Pakistan which we all know have been permitted to roost without limit at the expense of the people of Pakistan.

    There is mention of trying to maintain peace with India (Ah this gets the blood boiling of many).

    The major requirement is that Pakistanis Gov’t spends this money on exactly what it is intended for…schools, hospitals, healthcare, clean water, economic stimulus…etc for the “PEOPLE” of Pakistan. The gov’t is finally going to be held accountable to do right by the people of Pakistan. I do see this as the U.S. looking out for the best interest of Pakistani People as well as serving their interest as well. For once, the Paksitani gov’t has to be accountable for the gravy train to continue.

    Remember one thing, this money is from the hardworking people of America. It is their blood, sweat, and tears which makes this offer possible as well. And, it is the hope that this money will change the lives of Pakistanis for the better as well as help end the free reign of terrorists within Pakistan and surrounding areas. Indeed, Pakistan should be elated to receive such a large fee for doing what they should have been doing in regard to terrorism all along.

    Democracy will never truly be able to take hold until these terrorist are brought under control. They don’t want democracy to prevail. They don’t want the Pakistani people to have a say in anything about their lives, their country etc.

    As Pakistan’s economic status begins to grow, jobs will be more available. If people are actually capable of earning money they will be less inclined to sacrifice their lives and be persuaded to join these radical groups for the small financial compensation to their families. They will realize they have more worth to their families by maintaining gainful employment.

    And with education across the board, the children will learn to have hope for their future. No more sending very young children to work in the factories to provide for the family instead of going to school. That is the father’s job, not the young child’s. There is great value for the future in educating the children…males and females.

    It’s about time that Pakistan be permitted to step into the 21st century and be all that it can be, that it yearns to be but has not had the means. Education, Healthcare, Jobs, Clean water, Anti-terorism acts, child labor laws…etc.

    I am very anxious for the future of Pakistan. Let’s think good thoughts. Let’s use our heads, not give up our Sovereignty, and see if we can build a mutual friendship and trust one step at a time.

  91. bilal says:
    October 22nd, 2009 1:12 pm

    Cant you people see the big picture usa is not trying to buy out pakistan but is trying to wipe out ISLAM, they want to close the madrassa they want to try and have control what we teach kids and student the HOLY QUARAN they want to try and chance it wake up people but never the less ALLAH the ALL MIGHTY has promised the HOLY QUARAN CAN NEVER BE CHANGED

  92. M. A. Baqi Siddiqi says:
    October 28th, 2009 10:58 am

    I have gone thru the KLA and do not find any mention specifically of the conditions of the Act purported to be saying that this military hardware could not be used against INDIA. In my opinion it must be saying that this hardware could not be used against any beighbouring country? Am I right. I might have overlooked the real thing. Could somebody please guide me?

  93. MAJED ALI AND JAMAL says:
    November 16th, 2009 8:46 am

    In our views, Cerry Lugar Bill is against the integrity of our homeland. Or we can say $1.5 billion is the price of Pakistan. why cannt our IMPORTED HONEST POLITICIANS bring back their money to Pakistan.
    We regret that we are being sold for $1.5 billion to the country which has no background/nation itself.

  94. Ashi Ansari says:
    December 5th, 2009 11:33 pm

    CAN their exist the friendship between a beggar and a donor?
    Can friendship be continued between a slave and a master?
    V Pakistani have a peculiar characteristic to eat and to growl at the same time. V don’t want to change our habit to be just contented what v possess, and spend within our income.
    No government shares one hundred percent friendship with the other government, it is based just on the mutual benefits.
    America is a govt. that never demand to do without payment. Do u know that Zardari has become a symbol of growing percentage from 10 to wards the skyline.

  95. Chuck Kottke says:
    September 28th, 2010 2:32 pm

    I haven’t read the full bill yet, but I do hope it is well written, and if it’s intent is pure, I sincerely hope that it makes a big difference in the lives of the citizens of Pakistan, and in the future prosperity and freedom of the Pakistani people.
    Musaafir, I see what you are saying, and that is my hope as well – when given opportunity, we thrive; it is the right thing to do – to provide a path to success.
    The way I see it, by providing opportunity to Pakistan’s people, it is not charity, but just a way of opening up the door, and taking away the obstacles to success for the good people of Pakistan. The U.S. had the good fortune of having help from France during our revolution, the support of enlightened people from all over, and the people of France had the generosity to create and deliver to our shores our most cherished symbol of freedom – the Statue of Liberty. It is in our interest to extend the hope and progress we have been so fortunate to have had bestowed upon ourselves to the people of Pakistan, as a way of promoting the gifts we have been given. It is not ours alone, but it is the right of all mankind to secure the blessings of liberty, and to promote the general welfare.
    With improved prosperity comes better trade relations and greater shared prosperity for both of our peoples. It is in our interest for so many reasons, and is it not right to share with others the formula for prosperity we have been so fortunate to have? With prosperity comes contentment, stability, and the opportunity to grow together in the global community in which we are all a part of.

  96. Chuck Kottke says:
    September 28th, 2010 2:39 pm

    Correction – I meant to say I was in agreement with Aisha.

  97. Chuck Kottke says:
    September 28th, 2010 4:05 pm

    From the heart,
    When I see the images of the flooding, the desperation of those in need, I see someone just like myself or my neighbor who needs help. We are seeing some serious flooding here in my state right now, and it hits home. I want to help, and my country has the means to help.
    And I ponder why things are the way they are – because of history, the way trade deals have favored the countries in the north, and the need for there to be a better start for people in Pakistan. With better engineering, most of the flooding can be controlled into wetlands designed to take the excess waters. Better built dikes and levees make these disasters less likely and less harmful to people living in the riverfront areas, and moving communities to higher ground – even if it is built up with earth movers – is a very sensible way forward. And it has been a problem here as well – as everyone knows with the floods along the Mississippi River, New Orleans and the gulf coast.
    The frustrations from lack of good jobs and lack of access to education creates conditions where extremists find easy recruits, and wind up harming innocent people – a tragic set of circumstances that doesn’t have to happen. That is a human thing, regardless of country – you can find the same forces at work in America as in Pakistan, and the answer is greater economic stimulus, education, and sound equitable governance – all the checks and balances in place. If we put our resources into improving opportunity, the prosperity that follows pays dividends in ways no accounting can see – in the happiness in people’s lives, in the ability of all people to have meaningful lives and work without the constant fear of loosing one’s life and livelihood to floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. It is what any feeling & thinking person wants, and all I want if for those who are helped to live better lives, and they in kind can help others in need – roll it forward, share the love and compassion when the need arises. I have been helped when I was in need, and I have helped a friend in need recently – it is our shared humanity that binds us together in this world.

Have Your Say (Bol, magar piyar say)