I am posting this in this forum specifically to avoid n00bs from giving knee jerk reactions and to have a rationale discussion about the truth of the supposed US$10 billion given in aid to Pakistan for this War on Terror.

What I want is for you guys to tell me what is the truth about this and separate the truth from the myths propagated in the western media. I would appreciate arguments and details to be backed with proper and credible sources (links) so that this could be used as a resource for telling the truth to others.

Any general comments are also welcome, provided that they add to the topic rather than detract from it.

So start posting. Thanks.

Good thread.

Actual aid to Pakistan is $ 3 billiona dollars ONLY which is equally divided half and half between Military and economic assistance and provided over the 5 years.

Link

The rest of the $ 7 billion payments are to cover the expenses of 85,000 Pakistan Army troops stationed at the PAK-AFGHAN border. Expenses such as a fuel, replenishment costs and etc that have no relevance for Pakistan.




Link

Conclusion: The actual aid is only $ 3 billion. Rest of the payments have no relevance for Pakistan but only serves the purpose of USA.

Hmm.. Thanks.

Is there any in depth break down of the aid available?

well, irrespective of the fact that the remaining $ 7 billion is spent on the 80,000 or so Pak troops in FATA and whos purpose they serve, that money is still an injection into the Pakistan economy and is contributing to the GDP.

however, i think we should stop taking aid from US. the US is not only giving aid for their own interest but is enslaving us by making us dependant on their aid and equipment.

http://www.dawn.com/2008/03/09/welcome.htm

Ex-PM Aziz hopes new government would take Pak-US ties forward NEW YORK, Mar 9 (APP): Former Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz has expressed the hope that Pakistan and the United States would take their “vital” relationship forward after the induction of a new government in Pakistan. “New political dynamics are emerging. But most importantly, (the Feb. 18 free and fair) election have once again proved that the majority of Pakistanis are moderate and progressive and that extremism has no place in our society,” he told a meeting of an American think-tank in Los Angeles, California, on Saturday. Iin a wide-ranging speech to the Pacific Council on International Policy. Aziz pointed to the impression being created in the U.S. about the alleged vulnerability of Pakistan's nuclear assets. “These assets are under multilayered, institutionalized command and control structures and completely safe and secure.” The former premier also regretted the congressional trend towards conditionalities on U.S. assistance to Pakistan, and warned against repeating the Pressler Amendment under which Pakistan's aid was cutoff in the 80's, saying, “Sanctions are counter-productive.” The former premier also said that only half of the now famous figure of $10 billion being banded around was the actual assistance to enable Pakistan fight terrorism in the tribal areas. “It is wrong to project CSF (Coalition Support Fund) reimbursements as 'assistance' given to Pakistan since 2001. This is reimbursement for the expenditure already incurred by Pakistan. Reimbursements are not assistance. Nor should they be subject to any conditions.” Aziz also warned against non-payments of dues resulting from Pakistan's anti-terror operations, saying such a course could “lead to suspension of this cooperation as we cannot sustain this budgetary strain endlessly.” (Posted @ 17:45 PST)

The link is pretty old. Any new sources citing the exact amount which is aid and which isn't?

Up to 70% of US aid to Pakistan 'misspent'

So where has this 70% of aid gone?

The older site (cato.org) in 2_aliph_5's post which stated 3 billion dollars was from 2003 so it makes sense that the real aid is now 5.4 billion US dollars. Out of that, about 3.8 billion are missing. Where did it go?

This is why it is important to look not only at amounts and supposed allocation but also at how it is disbursed. Apparently (this from a US GAO report) a fair chunck of those reimbursements of army cost ar poorly accounted for

"Once a month, Pakistan's Defense Ministry delivers 15 to 20 pages of spreadsheets to the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad. They list costs for feeding, clothing, billeting and maintaining 80,000 to 100,000 Pakistani troops in the volatile tribal area along the Afghan border, in support of U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

No receipts are attached."

This means no one checks whether those costs were actually incurred. So, it is easy for that kind of money to be rerouted, diverted to other purposes of - plainly - to vanish in someone's pocket.

It is a mistake to write of those 7 billion as having no relevance. If any money has the potential to be grease money it is this money.

I think it is a 2-way street...80 000 local soldiers fighting an insurgency and $5bn USD over the last 6-7 years sounds like a cheap deal compared to the Iraq issue.

This means no one checks whether those costs were actually incurred. So, it is easy for that kind of money to be rerouted, diverted to other purposes of - plainly - to vanish in someone's pocket.

Pengiun .. sorry to bust your bubble but the payment is not done without invoicing and once soverign invoice is raised there is a whole set of laws & by laws to receive & check the accounting ... We have an institution called PAC (Pakistan audit commission) which checks everything. There is no such thing is going into ones pocket when an invoice is made.

We are not going to submit supporting evidence like petrol puchases, payslips, food bills to the US, our services are on lump sum basis which is a normal norm in secondment style of accounting in the world. It is a built in price for a army men which would include his monthly salary and allowances, including all expenses, annual leave, gratuity, employment expenses, placement expenses, etc on pro rata basis.

The US claims that we are saving this money and diverting it to buy arms, however, our claim is that whatever we do is our concern talk abou the lump sum pricing mechanism and don't talk crap. It like charging them 1,000 US to 1,500 per hour of helo flying.

I would say that in the last 3 years the inflation has gone something like 12 to 18% per annum & our lump sum prices should be revised from previous rates by at least 50%.

All construction & servicing industries in the world are doing that.

Bhai, I told you that real aid is only $ 3 billion divided equally between military assistance of $1.5 billion and Economic assistance of $1.5 billion. This $3 billion aid is to be provided over a 5 year period which is around $600-$650 million per year.

The rest of the $7 billion is not aid but are expenses that the Pakistan Army incur due to posting of 86,000+ troops at the PAK-Afghan border. Which amount to $80-$85 million per month. This amount inculdes transporation expenses, fuel, airplane and helicopter flying hours, barbed wires, ammo expenses, shelter, salaries and etc.

Please understand that when USA insisted that Pakistan deploy troops in numbers, Pakistan agreed on conidition that USA will pay for their costs. The US administration knows it. Now if some dumb USA politician under the influnces of bhangees or what not start asking questions out of his arse without doing even a limited research and hyped by the media does not change the facts.

It doesnt matter if there is a ceasefire or not. Point is that $86,000+ troops are there deployed back and forth between different locations, there are still recon flights and etc for which there are expenses.

I remember reading an article, where the US officials raised concerns over the price of barbed wire as it included inflation.....

Please note I did not say that money was being rerouted, diverted to other purposes or - plainly - vanishing in someone's pocket. What I said is that it is >comparatively< easy for this to happen i.e. relative to other ways in which moneys (aid, reimbursement, whatever) are usually disbursed. The moneys we're talking about at not earmarked for example. By comparison, US FMA money usually has to be spent on US arms from US manfucatures. In other words there is relatively greater potential for trouble. The fact that there are - as you point out - discrepant claims only underscores this: already these payments are a trouble source (irrespective of which claim is true). Which illustrates why I think one can't just ignore that money saying "it's reimbursements, not aid".

The only reason they are there is to support American efforts in Afghanistan where around 50K nato forces are operating in the entire country. So it is needless to say that NATO forces need Pakistan's Army help and since Pakistan is not the member of the NATO, it has no obligation to support them. So it follows naturally that Pakistan Army financial costs for that operation be met.

So if you think that we are doing Pakistan a favor by paying for that operation then you are clearly mistaken. PA is clearly strained and taking losses so the least we can do is to pay for their services in the FATA area. So again it is not aid but a payment that we make in exchange for their services and it is not like that PA is happy about getting a punny $80-90 million every month.

Please note I did not say that money was being rerouted, diverted to other purposes or - plainly - vanishing in someone's pocket. What I said is that it is >comparatively< easy for this to happen i.e. relative to other ways in which moneys (aid, reimbursement, whatever) are usually disbursed

Penguin, so what really did mean when you wrote the below :

This is why it is important to look not only at amounts and supposed allocation but also at how it is disbursed. Apparently (this from a US GAO report) a fair chunck of those reimbursements of army cost ar poorly accounted for

This means no one checks whether those costs were actually incurred. So, it is easy for that kind of money to be rerouted, diverted to other purposes of - plainly - to vanish in someone's pocket.

It is a mistake to write of those 7 billion as having no relevance. If any money has the potential to be grease money it is this money.

For Pakistan it is quite clear .. that the reimbursement which US is giving us is not even 10% equal to the collatoral loss which GOP is getting in return fighting the WOT.

Up to now economic returns from this war has been catastrophic to Pakistan and surely USA has not helped either. In fact the way we see it .. we are the ones who are pusuading US to fight WOT as it is in our backyard. US has since 9/11 other than removing the Taleban been involved in half cooked security arrangments for Afghanistan. Even the helos to attack the fighters were given to us only after 5 years of the actual fight.

Up to now USA is not ready to implement the border sealing between Pakistan & Afghanistan, up to now US has not got involved on installing or opening "Special economic zones / SEZ for giving employment to local populace, enabling effectively making local populace move away from the terrorists". Up to now USA has not made either MFN or BIT agreements to Pakistan to make up for the loss of foreign investment in Pakistan due to WOT.

If anybody who has failed in apprehending Al Qaeda & WOT than I think it has been USA .. for they have chosen Iraqi oil over crushing Al Qaeda operations in the world. I am sure we understand very well the priorities of USA ..

If it is poorly accounted for (GAO report), then it is a source of distrust and friction between US and Pakistan

If it is poorly accounted for (GAO report), then it is a source of distrust and friction between US and Pakistan

Again you are using loose words & making a mountain out of a mole.

If there is mistrust in our accounting practice & if US thinks that we are over charging than either follow NATO's suite .. get your supplies through Russia to get more competitive rates !

It is quite simple, but I have observed that you have avoided reply to my earlier post against your allegations ?

By the say for SEZ .. America is starting to wake up now (yeah the bill is finally being moved .. of course implementation is like 10 years in the offing .. but hey what .. OBL was never a priority for USA ! Iraqi petrol was) -

http://www.dawn.com/2008/03/16/top18.htm

Bill for setting up of ROZs moved in Congress
By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, March 15: The US Congress has taken up a piece of legislation that will allow President Bush to designate reconstruction opportunity zones (ROZs) in the border regions and earthquake-affected areas of Pakistan and throughout Afghanistan.

A bipartisan panel of Senators Maria Cantwell, Orrin Hatch, Kit Bond, Joe Lieberman, and Chuck Hagel introduced the ROZ bill in the US Senate on Friday.

The support of both Republican and Democratic lawmakers would ensure a smooth passage of the bill which will allow duty-free entry into the United States of specified goods produced within the ROZs.

President Bush had announced his plan to establish ROZs in Afghanistan and certain areas of Pakistan during his March, 2006, visit to Islamabad and Kabul.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, while welcoming the move, said “the passage of this legislation as drafted would fulfil the goal” President Bush announced during his visit.

“It also would send a strong message of support to the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, symbolising our long-term commitment to the security, peace, and prosperity of the region,” he added.

Mr McCormack noted that the bill constitutes a vital component of the Bush administration’s three-pronged military, political, and economic strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“By encouraging production in ROZs, this bill would fuel sustainable economic development and provide legitimate employment opportunities, particularly in the border area, as an alternative to violent extremism,” he said.

“ROZs are designed to leverage the power of the private sector to create jobs and fuel sustainable economic development in this critical region.”

Mr McCormack hoped that the ROZs would also provide a potent tool in the fight against extremism by giving Afghans and Pakistanis a critical chance to improve their lives.

“We look forward to working with the House and Senate in a bipartisan and constructive manner as the legislative process continues on this bill.”

The proposed reconstruction opportunity zones are similar to a programme which provides duty-free access to US markets for certain Egyptian and Jordanian goods made in designated “qualified industrial zones” with Israeli components.

Although proposed more than two years ago, the plan to establish ROZs was delayed because of stiff opposition from US textile groups, which fear the trade benefits would cost American jobs. (WHY NOT OPEN AN OIL REFINERY WITH THE OLD SCAPPED UP PLANTS IN USA OR MAKE SOME WORTHWHILE INDUSTRY & NOT JUST INCENTIVES FOR TEXTILE)

In August last year, a high-level Pakistani delegation visited Washington and urged the US administration to expedite the process.

Instead of specifying the tribal areas, the bill introduced in the US Senate uses the term “border regions” which would allow Pakistan to establish industrial zones in areas close to the tribal belt.

Both official and private delegations from Pakistan that visited Washington during the last two years for talks on the proposed ROZs argued that they be allowed to set up industrial units outside the tribal belt as well.

Confining ROZs to the tribal belt, they argued, will make it difficult to implement the plan as some tribal areas do not have the required infrastructure for setting up industrial units.

The negotiations led to an agreement to set up chain of industries in the entire NWFP, Fata and a 100 miles belt along Afghan border in Balochistan, which brings Quetta within the ROZ range.

Pakistan has proposed the establishment of ROZs in 20 districts, including the quake-hit areas of NWFP and Azad Kashmir.

The districts identified for the establishment of ROZs included: Bahawalpur, D.G. Khan, Jhang and Muzafargarh in Punjab; Badin, Jacobabad, Khairpur, Sanghar, Tharparkar and Thatta in Sindh; Bunir, D.I. Khan, Hangu, Lower Dir, Swat and Upper Dir in NWFP and Gwadar, Kalat, Kharan and Sibi in Balochistan.

Some units will also be set up in North and South Waziristan, which are seen in the US as the most troubled areas in Pakistan.

Despite a strong opposition from American textile producers, Washington agreed to include 77 categories of textile products in the proposed ROZs. The list, however, does not contain many hot items that Pakistani businessmen wanted to include, such as bed wear and a variety of apparels.

You are not taking into account the fact that US was the one that created all this trouble for Pakistan in the first place. This money is nothing few cheap coins dont make up for the 1200 soldiers we have lost or the the destruction it has caused Pakistan, US set up the terror training camps they are the ones who created and funded them they didnt want them in Texas or California so they set them up in Pakistan during the 1980s and today is a direct result of that.

Pakistans state today is a direct result of US interference in our country, US screwed us time and time again, they made the poppy fields set up the mujahideen then mission was accomplished in 1989 they abandoned us when they should have cleared up the mess, it wasnt until the wake up call after 9/11 that US started thinking of Afghanistan and so now we are here in 2008 with Pakistan with bombs going off left, right and centre while Americans sit in thier homes and enjoy the life and then they have the bare faced nerve to turn around to us and say if you dont co-operate we will bomb you back to the stone age, this war on terror is a US war they started it let US fight it.

US set up the terror training camps they are the ones who created and funded them they didnt want them in Texas or California so they set them up in Pakistan during the 1980s and today is a direct result of that.

US did not have the balls to face USSR in the early years of Afghan war due to the last experience of a$$whipping they got in Vietnam !

They provided the Mujhadeen Russian arms bought from Palestinians (via Israel) & Egypt. It was only Pakistan which stood openly against USSR.

Actully you are saying what I always say, where did I deny Pakistan involvment?

Report: $6 billion in aid to Pakistan poorly tracked (cnn)

Audit questions oversight of aid to Pakistan (associated press)

Not new:

U.S. Officials See Waste in Billions Sent to Pakistan