Washington wants to spend half of "US aid to Pakistan" on upgrading US Embassy & Consulates

Posted on 24 May 2009.

Hatena Bookmark - Washington wants to spend half of "US aid to Pakistan" on upgrading US Embassy & Consulates

US “Aid” to Pakistan is a joke!

The ineptitudede, inefficiency and total incompetence of the US Administration is evidenced by the deluge of confused, contradictory and utterly imbecilic comments emanating from the Freshman diplomats of the Obama Administration. The concocted hysteria and the farcical panic in the voices of Hillary Clinton, Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus seems comical, is disingenuous and reflects the image of consummate “The Ugly American“. The stink from the acerbic comments permeates the air and deprecates the stature of the Stars and Stripes, once loved and revered from Morocco to Indonesia.

When the American U2 spy planes used to take off from the US Badabare Air Force base near Peshawar, Pakistanis would cheer the American GIs. When Brezinski used to visit Torkham an ocean of well wishers would throw flowers at him. When President Johnson visited Pakistan, entire cities came out to welcome him. In recent years, US diplomats sneak in and out of Pakistan and are unable to face Pakistani journalists.

The recent Pakistanphobic statements of the Administration have utterly alienated the Pakistani elite and the Pakistani masses. Despite the 5th column, the US message of doom and gloom has fallen off like water off a ducks back. The implied threats from Holbrooke and his acolytes create more Anti-Americanism and is reminiscent of 2001 when the US Air Force was dropping red colored cluster bombs and green colored relief packages for the Afghans.

The absurdity of that acts (of dropping death and destruction and food by the same vehicle and at the same time) also showed the hubris and the abject poverty of intellect of the Bush Administration. Today the US is doing the same in Pakistan. It is bombing people with drones, and then sending aid (which is actually loans) to its own consultants and embassies (a framing it as “aid” being sent to Pakistan). The acturail practice of calling “loans” as “aid” is not lost to all. Any dimwit with half a brain knows this. It is amazing the neither Najam Sethi, nor, Ayaz Amir, nor Ikram Sehgal, nor Asma Gilani ever refutes this architected amphigory.

There are news reports that half the US aid will be spent on improving the security of the US Embassies and Consulates. This means that Karachi will be further inconvenienced because the Embassy will close further roads and disrupt the normal functioning of the arteries. This also means that Pakistan will be paying for a long time for upgrading the US embassy facilities. This also means that Fox news will continue to berate Pakistan about ”the billions of Dollars of “Aid” (actually loans) given to Pakistan.

ISLAMABAD — The U.S. is embarking on a $1 billion crash program to expand its diplomatic presence in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan, another sign that the Obama administration is making a costly, long-term commitment to war-torn South Asia, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

The White House has asked Congress for — and seems likely to receive — $736 million to build a new U.S. embassy in Islamabad, along withpermanent housing for U.S. government civilians and new office space in the Pakistani capital.

The scale of the projects rivals the giant U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which was completed last year after construction delays at a cost of $740 million. Iraq redux?Obama seeks funds for Pakistan super-embassy. By Saeed Shah and Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers

For some reason these loans give the White Man some sort of inalienable right to interfere in the internal affairs of Pakistan. These Dollars seem to allow low level US diplomats to tangle up the Pakistani politicians and purchase media personnel. The US Ambassador will also have discretionary spending of $5 million per year. A diplomat that earns only $70,000 can now corrupt the “natives”, fulfill the White Man’s burden in Afghanistan, and institute “The Doctrine of Lapse” type of policies which allowed the East India Company to take over entire states.

Senior State Department officials said the expanded diplomatic presence is needed to replace overcrowded, dilapidated and unsafe facilities and to support a “surge” of civilian officials into Afghanistan and Pakistan ordered by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Other major projects are planned for Kabul, Afghanistan; and for the Pakistani cities of Lahore and Peshawar. In Peshawar, the U.S. government is negotiating the purchase of a five-star hotel that would house a new U.S. consulate.

Funds for the projects are included in a 2009 supplemental spending bill that the House of Representatives and the Senate have passed in slightly different forms.

Obama has repeatedly stated that stabilizing Pakistan and Afghanistan, the countries from which al Qaidaand the Taliban operate, is vital to U.S. national security. He’s ordered thousands of additionaltroops to Afghanistan and is proposing substantially increased aid to both countries.

… and anti-American groups and politicians are likely to seize on the expanded diplomatic presence in Islamabad as evidence of American “imperial designs.”

“This is a replay of Baghdad,” said Khurshid Ahmad, a member of Pakistan’s upper house of parliament for Jamaat-e-Islami, one of the country’s two main religious politicalparties. “This (Islamabad embassy) is more (space) than they should need. It’s for the micro and macro management of Pakistan, and using Pakistan for pushing the American agenda in Central Asia.”

In Baghdad and other dangerous locales, U.S. diplomats have sometimes found themselves cut off from the population in heavily fortified compounds surrounded by blast walls, concertina wire and armed guards.

“If you’re going to have people live in a car bomb-prone place, your are driven to not have a light footprint,” said Ronald Neumann, a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and the president of the American Academy of Diplomacy. Neumann called the planned expansions “generally pretty justified.”

In Islamabad, according to State Department budget documents, the plan calls for the rapid construction of a $111 million new office annex to accommodate 330 workers; $197 million to build 156 permanent and 80 temporary housing units; and a $405 million replacement of the main embassy building…

The U.S. government also plans to revamp its consular buildings in the eastern city of Lahore and in Peshawar, the regional capital of the militancy plagued North West Frontier Province. The consulate in the southern megacity of Karachi has just been relocated into a new purpose-built accommodation. Iraq redux? Obama seeks funds for Pakistan super-embassy. By Saeed Shah and Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers

Humayun Gauhar is a prodigious columnist for Pakistan’s fiercely independent newspaper called “The Nation”, a newspaper that has maintained its integrity in the face of many obstacles. There are few Pakistani newspapers that remain true to the cause. The Frontier Post and the Statesman are among the ones that still portray real news.

Unlike dawn.com, the respectable Nation has not made any Faustian deals for economic profit and still publishes news and views that are genuine, realand show moral rectitude. Humayun Gauhar is the progeny of Information Secretary of President Ayub Khan.– Altaf Gauhar. Humanyun Gauhar is known for his deep insights into the working of the Pakistani government and has recently written an effulgent article on US Aid to Pakistan.Humayun should know the ropes, his father was called a CIA spy by G.M. Syed and is considered to be the ghost writer of Ayub’s book, ‘Friends not Masters”.

There is news about the much heralded US aid to Pakistan. From Barack Obama, to Hillary Clinton, to the US media all keep harping on the billions of Dollars sent to Pakistan. Utter nonsense and garbage.

The US aid to Pakistan is “Peanuts”. Egypt gets 2.5 Billion per Annam, Israel gets twice as much in grants per year. The loss to Pakistan according to the DOD accounting office was $20 Billion per year. Afghanistan got $143 Billion in the past eight years while Iraq got $605 Billion. The aid to Pakistan was $5 Billion (about $5 Billion was for reimbursement for expenses, 4 air force bases, and use of supply routes from Karachi to Torkham etc.)

US Aid. Here is some simple math. Half the US aid is to spent on enhancing the security of the American diplomatic corps. It is also a well known fact that half the US aid is always spent on US consultants. 25% is spent on administration of the USAID. Only 25% of this so called makes it to Islamabad to be routinely handed over to the American Ambassador’s favorite NGO. So much for the $1.9 Billion Dollar Aid. Pakistan needs Trade First not Aid First

The word ‘aid’ is another deception to hide the fact that most of the money ‘given’ us by America is a loan which we have to return one day with interest. An editorial entitled Deceptive aid in The Nation of May 13, 2009, encapsulates this hypocrisy: “It is quite surprising to learn that out of the $1.9 billion of US aid, almost half would be spent on enhancing the security of [the] US embassy and consulates in Pakistan. This belies the common impression given by the American leadership that the sum is directed at strengthening the country’s economy. It sounds pretty devious.”

The American presidential team is not discussing the real long term solutions to the issues relating to the generation poverty in SouthAsia. Pakistan has been asking for an Free Trade Agreement (FTA) withthe USA for a decade. Jordan and Egypt enjoy FTAor their equivalents with America and have been able to use the low tariffs to export their products to America. Pakistan’s FTA has been blocked by the Textile growing states of the USA because stalwarts like Jesse Helms believed that imports from Pakistan would jeopardise the economy of the Carolinas. Trade First not Aid First for Pakistan: FTA would reduce terror

Experts also say there are serious problems with the way U.S. aid is disbursed. A large portion of development assistance is spent on international consultants and overhead costs, which the new U.S. strategy acknowledges. Some analysts, including the RAND Corporation’s C. Christine Fair, say that the United States pursues a policy of supply-driven aid (Washington Quarterly) that measures output, such as schools built, rather than services delivered, such as quality of education. This observation is disputed by Charles North, a senior official for the region at USAID, in a CFR.org podcast.

The US Textile industry has resisted allowing tariff free Pakistani textile imports. Pakistan pays more tariffs than Sweden. If the US lifted the tariffs on Pakistani textiles this would funnel $15 Billion into the hands of the textile owners and their employees. The EU has started to become aware of the solutions. The first EU-Pakistan summit is going to be held soon.

Aid is also a very funny thing. It implies that it is money which has been “given” to a country. This can be misleading. Aid can come in the shape of a grant, a loan and, of course, expertise. More often than not there are several conditions attached to every programme. For instance, if there is a grant to buy wheat from USAID, Pakistan can only buy wheat from the United States at a predetermined rate, and not from the international market where rates can be negotiated. This takes care of surplus production from US farmers. The wheat will only be shipped on US ships, insured by US companies, etc. If the DFID, which is the British equivalent of USAID, puts fortha“development” programme, then only British consultants will be used and they can subcontract to local consultants, etc. The gravy train starts right at the beginning. Joseph Stiglitz, a former World Bank chief economist and author of several excellent books, has gone through this entire process in several of his writings and narrates how he left the World Bank in disgust eventually.No thank you, we’re Pakistani, Hit and run, Saturday, April 11, 2009, Shakir Husain

There’s also been a push for enhancing economic opportunities inside Pakistan through trade. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S.-Pakistan Business Council view expanded bilateral economic cooperation (PDF) as an essential component to achieving security goals for both countries. The United States is Pakistan’s largest investor and trading partner; however, U.S. tariffs on Pakistan’s textiles (over 50 percent of the country’s total global exports) undermine its ability to compete in the U.S. market. A 2001 billto ease textile trade with Pakistan never passed. Reducing tariffs might be even more difficult in the current global economic crisis. CFR Senior Fellow Isobel Coleman told CFR.org that by being closed on the tradefront, the United States is punishing the same poor, rural populations in Pakistan that it is trying to help through development aid. “It should be viewed in totality,” she said. CFR

Pakistan needs trade not aid. It needs aFTA and easy access to US and European markets. Pakistan needs massive reparations for lost economic activity since 1980. The Reconstruction Opportunity Zones should constructed as soon as possible. 2010 is too far off a date. The aid is lost in corrupt coffers.

Devious is not the word. It’s Satanic; for it is the American people they are really deceiving who in their simplicity go on harping about the $10 billion they have supposedly ‘given’ us. Someone should tell these dolts that half that amount was payments due for costs incurred in fighting America’s war. Even this $1.9 billion will probably be called ‘aid’ while we will be paying interest on refurbishing US property. Truth to tell, if we added up all the damage America’s vacillating ‘friendship’ has done to us, it will come to trillions. We should invoice them for it one day, when we have a government with you know what.

The incompetence of the US effort in Afghanistan is self evident by the results on the ground in Afghanistan. There is much discussing of the “accountability” and blank checks of Aid to Pakistan. What about the accountability of the results of the war in Afghanistan? Blank checks to the US army has resulted in inflaming not only Pakistan but it has also increased repression in the Central Asia Republics.

The inevitable conclusion is that either America is very stupid or it is instability-short-of-chaos that it really wants so that it can continue its presence in the region to control pipeline routes, make military bases and be within striking distance of all the enemies that it has created. Actually it is both stupid and deceptive, which is why none of its grand plans has ever worked and only caused chaos. An American says that it is not ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ at all but ‘Operation Enduring Instability’.The Nation. The writer is a senior political analyst. E-mail: humayun.gauhar@gmail.com

There are solutions, if one can get through the US Tin ear.

The best way America can help Pakistan is to put people to work. And the best way to do this would be to give duty-free treatment to Pakistan’s clothing, leather and textile industries.

In earlier decades, Southeast Asia and Central America used labor-intensive exports to create jobs, promote economic growth and defang radicals. Pakistan should be able to do the same. Though it is a small exporter, it has an efficient textile industry. Household linens earn most of the hard currency Pakistan uses to buy food and fuel, and are good job creators – each container full of towels puts 500 urban residents to work.

Today, though, American trade policy hurts these industries more than it helps. Tariffs on Pakistan’s goods are far above those imposed on products from affluent countries. To choose a simple example: Pakistan’s towels and T-shirts trigger 7.5 percent and 19 percent tariffs, while tariffs on Sweden’s cars and airplane parts are only 2.5 percent and zero. So last year, Pakistan’s $3.6 billion in goods exported to the U.S. faced a $365 million tariff penalty – almost three times the $142 million penalty on Sweden’s $13 billion. Why this perverse outcome? Lobbying campaigns have kept U.S. tariffs on the textiles Pakistan makes much higher than our tariffs on rich-country goods. To make matters worse, our exemption of most African and Latin American towels and shirts from tariffs puts Pakistan at a disadvantage against its direct competitors.

The logical step is to give Pakistan a break. Waiving tariffs on Pakistan’s millions of towels and shirts – and soccer balls and everything else it makes – could boost urban employment, help Pakistan’s government cool the political temperature, and thus help the new democratic system succeed.

Retail politics has blocked such a step until now. Fear of Pakistani competition in textiles, augmented by industry lobbying, stopped the Bush administration from pushing a tariff waiver in 2001 on the grounds that Congress would never go along. But as one-time congressional staffers, we think this sells Congress short. When a grave national security interest is at stake, Congress usually responds. We think it would do so again.

Shifting support for Pakistan from “aid first” to “trade first” would require leadership from the White House and support from Democrats. But given the dangers – for Pakistanis, Afghans, Americans and others – should Pakistan fail, the Bush administration should use its remaining time in office to take on this fight. Robert M. Hathaway is Asia program director at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. His e-mail is robert.hathaway@wilsoncenter.org. Edward Gresserisdirector of trade and global markets at the Progressive Policy Institute. His e-mail is egresser@ppionline.org.

Just imagine if the USA had agreed to the FTA and the free access of Textiles, this would have transferred more than $6 Billion per Annam to the cotton producing areas of Pakistan. $42 Billion plus increased export of other commodities would have created new opportunities for the farmers. They would have sent their kids to the best schools in Pakistan and America–not to madarssas. Thomas Freidman of the New York Times suggested opening up American markets for Pakistan products this in 2001!

The cumulative affect of $40-$100 Billion would have totally transformed the entire infrastructure of the country because the money would have gone directly to the farmers without any leakage into kleptomaniac hands of government officials.

However it is now seven years later, and neither the FTA, nor the access for textiles materialized. There is still time!

pakazad says:

May 24, 2009 at 2:53 pm

see moin as i told u even though we are the non nato allies of america we are facing trouble in exporting our products to america bcoz of FTA now tell me wat kind of friend of pakistan wud do that im telling u and to every pakistan that we shud get out of the mirage of american friendship when pakistan was broken in 1971 at that time our country was devastated and we needed huge economic and financial help but in return america put sanctions on us trying to totally break our back bone we must learn from our past
those people who dont learn from their past can never survive in the future
when we can survive with out america at then we can sure survive without america now

Reply