Posted on 05/20/2016 12:08:54 PM PDT by Jyotishi
US House blocks aid to duplicitous Pakistan
The US House of Representatives' decision to incorporate stringent requirements for the release of American aid to Pakistan, even in the face of opposition from the White House, is indicative of a gradual change of heart in Washington, DC, towards what was once its frontline ally in the war on terror. It comes days after the US Congress objected to the sale of American F-16s, which have little value in fighting insurgents but help Pakistan build parity with India. This is not to suggest that the US is anywhere close to changing its Pakistan policy or even that the contentious legislation at hand -- the National Defence Authorisation Act will see the light of day. There are still large and powerful sections within the US foreign policy establishment, including in the State Department, that aren't as critical of the current arrangement with Pakistan, and they can be expected to grow stronger if former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton becomes President. As far as the NDAA is concerned, it will in all probability pass through the Republican-dominated US Senate but face significant resistance from the Obama Administration. The President has already expressed his disapproval over the recent amendment that will make it difficult for the US Government to sanction aid to Pakistan. According to him, the new clause will make "unnecessarily complicate progress" in bilateral ties. Of course, it will after all, those who have been spoilt by blank cheques for decades would not now like to be called out for their duplicitous behaviour and be held accountable.
And this is exactly what Section 1212 of the NDAA does it requires an official no less than the Secretary of Defence to certify to the US Congress that Pakistan is taking action against the Haqqani network, and not using its military or funds or equipment provided by the US to persecute minority groups seeking political or religious freedom. Even if the Defence Secretary is able to wriggle his way around the first clause, it will be almost impossible for him to testify to the second given how widespread the abuse of ethnic and religious minorities is in Pakistan. This makes the NDAA an incredibly effective deterrent not just for the White House, which has been callously pumping billions of dollars into Pakistan ($30 billion since 2002, which, ironically, is then used to target American soldiers and other assets, primarily in Afghanistan) but by extension, also for Pakistan, which likes to believe (and not entirely without reason) that it has the world's only superpower twirled around its little finger. But once the US holds back its hefty aid package, Pakistan will be compelled to realign its interests and policies. Sure, Pakistan has other deep-pocket benefactors, such as China and Saudi Arabia, but if the US tightens its purse-strings, Pakistan is bound to feel the pinch. In fact, a similar certification requirement for this year's aid package has already blocked the flow of $300 million to Pakistan.
Trump effect?
I was getting pissed at the CBS drama "Madam Secretary", then they had a story arc about duplicitous Pakistan. Nice save. Zero's screwed on this one, so is Hitlery -- neither one can do much, and have to watch their mouths, regarding this Congressional move. This is not least because, during his 2008 campaign (wasn't it?), Zero suggested we needed to invade Pakistan, and Hillary probably said "no we don't". A great big up yours to Osama's safe haven and Obama's erstwhile vacation spot. Thanks Jyotishi.
Why are we giving money to foreign countries in the first place? What has “foreign aid” ever accomplished?
Not to mention that it's borrowed money.
Pinging TBP for his Pakistani perspective
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.