U.S. Legislation Seeks Ban On Assistance To Pakistan

US legislation seeks ban on assistance to Pakistan

http://www.dawn.com/2007/01/25/top1.htm

(Gold9472: This is an interesting article. They're giving the President the choice of whether or not Pakistan should receive assistance.

By Anwar Iqbal
1/24/2007

WASHINGTON, Jan 24: A new legislation, already endorsed by the House of Representatives, calls for stopping US military assistance to Pakistan if Islamabad fails to halt the resurgence of Taliban inside its territory.

The first piece of legislation by the new Congress since it was sworn in earlier this month also urges the Bush administration to help resolve the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan.

Meanwhile, at a briefing at the Pakistani embassy, Ambassador Mahmud Ali Durrani acknowledged that anti-Pakistan feelings were strong in the United States because of “misperceptions” about the country’s role in the war against terrorism.

“We are already standing on our head, what else we could do,” he asked. “They should not blame us for their failures.”

The proposed legislation urges the US president to certify that Islamabad is making all efforts to “prevent Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control, including in the cities of Quetta and Chaman” before releasing any funds or approving licenses for enhancing its military capability.

The new provisions form part of the Implementation of 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act, 2007, aimed at revamping the US national security and foreign policy apparatus to address challenges post-9/11.

Three countries have been singled out in the proposed legislation: Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

A congressional aide, who did not want to be identified, told Dawn that the legislation “shows the general mood in both the chambers, which is not very favourable to Pakistan,” said the aide who did not want to be identified.

The section on Pakistan lays down a set of policy objectives that range from ensuring free and fair parliamentary elections this year to securing borders to “prevent movement of militants and terrorists into other countries.”

The Act, cleared by the House of Representatives, is now being discussed in the Senate.

The legislation acknowledges that “since September 11, 2001, the government of Pakistan has been an important partner in helping the United States remove the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and combating international terrorism in the frontier provinces of Pakistan”.But “there remain a number of critical issues that threaten to disrupt the relationship between the United States and Pakistan, undermine international security, and destabilise Pakistan”.

Recognising Pakistan’s importance in the war against terror, it grants the US president the power to forge a “strategic partnership” but places limitations on the president’s authority to provide credit on favourable terms for purchase of military equipment and spares. It emphasises that for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, US military assistance to Pakistan may not be provided” unless the president “determines and certifies” that the Pakistan government is taking all actions against Taliban.

These include credit for military sales and purchases in Foreign Assistance Act and Section 23 of Arms Export Control Act along with licenses for any item controlled under this Act.

The US president may waive the limitation on assistance for a fiscal year if he determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that it is important to the national security interest of the United States to do so.

The areas where Pakistan needs to take action against the resurgent Taliban militia have been identified as Quetta, Chaman, the North West Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

Once the Act is passed, the president will be required to submit within 90 days to the relevant Congressional committees a report on the US strategy towards Pakistan that should spell out the “long-term” plan which the US has in mind to “accomplish the goal of building a moderate Pakistan.”

The bill identifies the “critical issues” that need immediate action as:

• Curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology.
• Combating poverty and corruption.
• Building effective government institutions.
• Promoting democracy and the rule of law, particularly at the national level.
• Addressing continued presence of Taliban and other violent extremists throughout the country.
• Maintaining the authority of the Government of Pakistan in all parts of its national territory.
• Securing borders of Pakistan to prevent movement of militants and terrorists into other countries and territories.
• Effectively dealing with Islamic terrorism.

The Act also lays out policy guidelines for the US government, which is not binding on the administration of the day but does give a sense of Congress.

These include:

• To work with Pakistan to combat international terrorism, especially in the frontier provinces, and to end the use of Pakistan as a safe haven for forces associated with the Taliban.
• To establish a long-term strategic partnership with Pakistan to address these issues.
• To dramatically increase funding for programmes of the United States Agency for International Development and the Department of State that assist Pakistan in addressing such issues, if Islamabad demonstrates a commitment to building a moderate, democratic state, including significant steps towards free and fair parliamentary elections in 2007.
• To work with the international community to secure additional financial and political support to effectively implement the policies set forth in this subsection and help to resolve the dispute between the government of Pakistan and the government of India over the disputed territory of Kashmir.

wow...if we cut them off...where is the ISI gonna get money to send to BinLaden?

House 9/11 bill no cause of worry for Pakistan

http://www.pakistanlink.com/Headlines/Jan07/28/11.htm

1/28/2007

WASHINGTON: As part of their promised first 100 hours of agenda, the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives has rammed through a bill – without debate or referral to committees – as part of the implementation of recommendations by the 9/11 Commission.

The wide-ranging bill, which includes both positive and negative provisions related to Pakistan, was passed by the house on January 5 (299 to 128), the same day it was introduced, and referred to the Senate on January 9, where it was read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

The bill, which is titled Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007, is a compendium of six separate bills, one of which – titled Nuclear Black Market Counter-Terrorism Act of 2007 – has implications for Pakistan, in particular to the AQ Khan network, as it directs the president to impose sanctions for transfers of nuclear technology involving foreign people and terrorists. It also requires the president to identify nuclear proliferation network countries and suspend arms sales to such countries.

However, this is by no means the final form in which the bill will emerge through the Senate. It is also to be pointed out that the president retains his discretionary power not to abide by such a provision, if in his judgment it is in the US national interest not to do so. He can exercise a waiver, as his office has done in the case of Pakistan on numerous occasions in the past.

The bill is not Pakistan-specific either. Much of what it contains is part of the Democratic Party’s election agenda. The language in relation to Pakistan is at places harsh, but there is every likelihood of its being modified or softened as the bill goes through the congressional mill before becoming a law. There is always a dichotomy between the House of Representatives and the Senate versions of all bills. The incongruities are resolved through a conference between the representatives of the two chambers of Congress. An embassy source said on Saturday that some of the provisions of the bill in its present form were inconsistent with the close and collaborative relationship that existed between Pakistan and the US. He stressed that there was total bilateral support in Congress for improvement in current ties, which, were of a long-term nature.

He was confident that some of the language in relation to Pakistan that the bill now contains would not be looked at too kindly by the administration. He said that the bill had just been pushed through without debate. Had there been debate, it would have emerged in a form, as far as Pakistan is concerned, quite different from the one in which it has appeared. He was also confident that the bill would undergo desirable changes from a Pakistani point of view before assuming its final shape. He said that Pakistan was a non-NATO ally of the US, and any aspect of the bill that undermined that relationship would fall by the wayside as the bill proceeded through the legislative process. He pointed out that the bulk of the bill related to internal matters, the external aspect being only a small part of it.

The embassy source said what must not be lost sight of was that the bill, even if it became a law, could be non-binding when it came to the exercise of the president’s power to grant waivers. He said the positive aspects of the bill needed to be highlighted, such as its emphasis on the resolution of the Kashmir dispute and the increase in assistance to Pakistan in a “dramatic” way to enhance its ability to be an effective US ally in the war on terror.

The embassy source said an effort was already underway to have such provisions of the bill modified. “We have the support of the administration in this as well as that of a number of key Democrats,” he added. “It is nonsense to claim that this is ‘another Pressler in the making’,” he said, referring to a comment reportedly made by a former Pakistani military officer.

The provision that would require Pakistan to “surrender” Dr AQ Khan, even if it survived, would remain no more than a paper demand since Pakistan had declared more than once that it was going to do no such thing, he added. What is more, Pakistan has not permitted, despite considerable US and IAEA pressure, to make AQ Khan directly available for questioning. Any questions that anyone has had for AQ Khan have been submitted to Pakistan, which has provided answers where available. As for sanctions that the bill would require in case of non-cooperation by Pakistan, such sanctions any US administration would only impose if it decided to terminate its present relationship with Pakistan, a possibility that was not even academic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrDark71

wow...if we cut them off...where is the ISI gonna get money to send to BinLaden?

---

Poppies.