Interesting sign that Kerry's and Lugar's Pakistan aid bill really does have more oversight than

[karynnj]

The bills of the past decades.

When the Kerry's landmark legislation was passed, many on GD-P linked to articles showing that past aid did not go where it was supposed to go - nearly all of it was diverted. One interesting sign that the Pakistanis are convinced the oversight on this bill is more real are the debates in Pakistan over whether the bill causes Pakistan to lose some of its sovereignty. (though it is hard to say that we should have no say over how they use our money.)

Here is a Reuters Q & A on it that does a great job in listing the "controversial" conditions - http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSISL466759 (The conditions look reasonable to me.)

Here is an article on the debate. It is the military that is making these charges, which the Zardari government refutes.

Pakistan is seeking a national consensus on a U.S. aid bill after the powerful military voiced serious concern about conditions in the legislation that critics say amount to a humiliating violation of sovereignty.

The army's unusual public criticism of a diplomatic matter appears to have opened a rift with President Asif Ali Zardari's fragile government, which had earlier rejected opposition complaints that the U.S. bill undermined sovereignty.

Analysts are not predicting any immediate show-down between the military, which has vowed to stay out of politics, and the government but say the army's criticism could embolden the opposition which has whipped up criticism of Zardari.

<snip>
But in an effort to address U.S. concerns that Pakistan's military may support militant groups, the bill stipulates conditions for security aid, among them that Pakistan must show commitment in fighting terrorism.

http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSISL478759

It could be they are trying to get the conditions softened, as Obama has not signed it into law yet, but it is really unlikely to be that. It also looks unlikely that Pakistan will turn down the aid. Ultimately, it seems that this will potentially strengthen the government, while increasing their control of their own military.

I had been impressed by the humanitarian goals of the legislation, but this convinces me that there was very serious thought given to preventing as much as possible the diversion of the aid to things not intended and to stabilizing Pakistan.

Kerry's response:

US Senator John Kerry, the main sponsor of the controversial Kerry Lugar Bill, has said Washington has no intention to harm Pakistan’s sovereignty through the Bill.

Addressing a press conference after meeting Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi here, Kerry said the Obama Administration wants to work for the better of the Pakistanis and stressed that the aid Bill is a clear sign of US’ direct relations with the people of Pakistan.

“Pakistan will be given 7.5 billion dollar aid under Kerry Lugar Bill. We want good relationship with the government of Pakistan,” The News quoted Kerry, as saying.

Meanwhile, US Vice President Joe Biden has said that the Congress and House of Representatives have unanimously approved the Bill.

http://trak.in/news/kerry-lugar-bill-would-not-harm-paks-sovereignty-john-kerry/11288/

An alternative way of thinking of this bill is that it is a bill that is designed to help Pakistan improve its own stability and to improve conditions making joining terrorist groups less attractive - in addition to gaining more support by the Pakistanis in fighting terrorism - whether against India or Al Qaeda. It makes me wonder if a counter terrorism approach in Afghanistan coupled with a similar aid bill could be a possibility - if there were strict controls to quickly shut off money if it was being diverted by corrupt officials. (This would counter the likely charge that a counter terrorism approach would abandon the idea of rebuilding (or just building for the first time) Afghanistan's infrastructure. )

[karynnj]

1. This could counteract the likely charge that counter terrorism rather than counterinsurgency

in Afghanistan will not help people in the countries. Reading the article (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8689609 ) on Code Pink's current concern about the plight of women in Afghanistan if we pull out, it is clear that the same charge is likely to be made if Obama rejects the counterinsurgency approach.

the two approaches are already being defined in black and white terms - where counterinsurgency is DEFINED to result in a stable, democratic, better country and counter terrorism is being defined as a policy that "just kills the terrorists." This is wrong for two reasons - counterinsurgency is not guaranteed to work and you are left with the government you are allied with and because there is no reason that counterterrorism can't be combined (though independent) with redevelopment.

The fact is that counterterrorism does not have to be a stand alone policy. Reading a few articles on the Pakistan aid bill, it is clear that it could ultimately be the model for helping reconstruct Afghanistan's infrastructure, if they join us in fighting terrorism. It is also possible that the "nation building" piece can be done primarily by the allies, who have been more willing to do this than to act militarily.

[mopinko]

2. "a humiliating violation of sovereignty"

:wtf: not humiliated to take money meant for women and children and steal it. just humiliating to actually have to spend it as intended? :crazy:

[karynnj]

3. yes, what humiliation. The military, among others, will not be able to steal it

to divert to building up forces against India. We know where very little of the money sent since 2000 has gone.

[ProSense]

4. Excellent post. Interesting point:

It makes me wonder if a counter terrorism approach in Afghanistan coupled with a similar aid bill could be a possibility

That's a great idea, but is the government of Afghanistan stable and trustworthy enough to warrant a similar bill? Or does it not matter?

[karynnj]

5. Given their current government, it would seem that

the conditions can be written to shut off the spigot if money is not used for intended purposes or if other conditions are not met. The key is that there REALLY has to be oversight. Then it is a carrot moving them in the right direction, helping people in abject poverty at the same time - winning hearts and minds - maybe meaning the creation of fewer terrorist in the future.

(It looks as though the Biden/Kerry people pushing counterterrorism are winning the argument in the WH ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8689752

Remember also that this bill was started last year as Biden/Lugar - so he likely favors all or most of the ideas.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

8. I'd say it doesn't matter. We should just form a commitee of warlords and work through them.

[karynnj]

6. kick

[Cha]

7. Rec'd and a

Kick for all of Kerry's work on this and thanks for bringing it on, karyn.