28/05: War on Terror: The Issue of Reimbursement Payments
The issue of WoT payments that the US has made to Pakistan has been a hot issue in government circles, especially in the US. Often enough, the Pakistani government is criticized for not properly spending the money. It is difficult for any sane and logical person to understand why the US has any say in how the reimbursement payments are spent. That's right!Reimbursement payments.
What the US government sends the Pakistani government is mostly payment for expenses that Pakistan has already incurred in deploying and maintaining troops on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Last I read, a couple weeks back, Pakistan has over 100,000 troops deployed on that border - far higher than the total number of ISAF/NATO forces inside Afghanistan. Does the US government and particularly the US Senators creating all this noise over this issue think that stationing such a large number of troops on that border is cheap?
If so, they should consider the expenses of the NATO/ISAF forces inside Afghanistan which are far lesser in number but still have higher expenses than those reimbursed to Pakistan. They must not forget that Pakistan is a developing nation that doesn't has such large amounts of funds to invest in maintaining troop presence on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. In fact, there was very little troop presence on that particular border before the war on terror started. Thousands of Pakistani lives have been lost in this war for American interests- one of the reasons amongst a whole pile of reasons for the Pakistani publics disenchantment with America.
It is sad and disheartening to see the frequent mention of ISAF/NATO casualties across the border in Afghanistan but practically no mention of Pakistani lives lost right across that border on the Pakistani side when both sides are fighting the same war. Is the life of a Pakistani soldier so worthless?
‘Pakistan gets less than half of what it spends’: Anti-terror efforts
By Anwar Iqbal
WASHINGTON, May 27: What Pakistan gets as reimbursement for its efforts to combat militants along the Afghan border is less than half of what it spends, diplomatic sources say.
Under a programme known as the Coalition Support Fund, the US military reimburses Pakistan for terrorism-related operations, particularly by the army and the air force.
A US Government Accountability Office report issued last week said that of $5.8 billion in US support for anti-terrorism efforts in the Fata between 2002 and 2007, about 96 per cent had gone towards reimbursing the Pakistani military, three per cent on border security and one per cent on development aid projects.
Talking to Dawn, sources said the $5.8 billion Pakistan received from the CSF was reimbursement of what the country had already spent.
“It is not easy to deploy 100,000 troops in a troubled area,” said one diplomatic source. “Look, how the Americans are spending billions of dollars on maintaining troops in Iraq. If the Americans feel that the Iraq war is draining their resources, imagine how it affects Pakistan.”
Noting that Pakistan has lost almost 1,000 soldiers in the fight, sources complained that the CSF does not compensate for the loss of life. There is no provision for supporting the families of the slain soldiers either.
“The life of every human being is precious,” said a diplomatic observer. “But the death of a Pakistani soldier gets no mention in the international media and that’s why people in the West feel that Pakistan is not doing enough.”
The CSF does not cover depreciation of equipment either, such as the Cobra helicopters used to monitor the Pak-Afghan border. The Pakistanis, however, are compensated for the money they spend on the soldiers, for fuel, ammunition and for flying sorties. Responding to the claim in the official US report that Pakistan was not spending the money it received from the CSF on development, a source said that this money was not meant for development.
“It is reimbursement and the Pakistanis are at liberty to use it for whatever they want to use it for,” the source said. “But the $750 million Pakistan is going to receive now is for the development of the Fata and the Americans will have every right to hold Pakistan accountable for that.”
Sources said that the continued criticism of the US reimbursement policy has forced the Bush administration to place new restriction on the disbursement of funds. “Payments have been delayed. Pakistan has not yet been reimbursed for some of the money it spent last year,” a source said.
Although put on the defensive by the US media and Congress, some Bush administration officials have recently pointed out that it was wrong to ask Pakistan to explain how they use the reimbursements.
US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told a recent congressional hearing that what Pakistanis receive from the CSF is their money and the US cannot tell them how to use it.
But the GAO notes that the Bush administration has stepped up its oversight of the direct security assistance in recent months.
From 2004 to early 2007, it deferred or rejected an average of just over 2 per cent of Pakistan’s reimbursement claims. But for the most recent set of claims, between March and June of 2007, that amount jumped to 20 per cent.
28/05: War on Terror: The Issue of Reimbursement Payments
The issue of WoT payments that the US has made to Pakistan has been a hot issue in government circles, especially in the US. Often enough, the Pakistani government is criticized for not properly spending the money. It is difficult for any sane and logical person to understand why the US has any say in how the reimbursement payments are spent. That's right! Reimbursement payments.What the US government sends the Pakistani government is mostly payment for expenses that Pakistan has already incurred in deploying and maintaining troops on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Last I read, a couple weeks back, Pakistan has over 100,000 troops deployed on that border - far higher than the total number of ISAF/NATO forces inside Afghanistan. Does the US government and particularly the US Senators creating all this noise over this issue think that stationing such a large number of troops on that border is cheap?
If so, they should consider the expenses of the NATO/ISAF forces inside Afghanistan which are far lesser in number but still have higher expenses than those reimbursed to Pakistan. They must not forget that Pakistan is a developing nation that doesn't has such large amounts of funds to invest in maintaining troop presence on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. In fact, there was very little troop presence on that particular border before the war on terror started. Thousands of Pakistani lives have been lost in this war for American interests- one of the reasons amongst a whole pile of reasons for the Pakistani publics disenchantment with America.
It is sad and disheartening to see the frequent mention of ISAF/NATO casualties across the border in Afghanistan but practically no mention of Pakistani lives lost right across that border on the Pakistani side when both sides are fighting the same war. Is the life of a Pakistani soldier so worthless?
On that note, I leave you with a thought provoking article from Dawn. I have marked specific parts of interest in bold.
‘Pakistan gets less than half of what it spends’: Anti-terror efforts
By Anwar Iqbal
WASHINGTON, May 27: What Pakistan gets as reimbursement for its efforts to combat militants along the Afghan border is less than half of what it spends, diplomatic sources say.
Under a programme known as the Coalition Support Fund, the US military reimburses Pakistan for terrorism-related operations, particularly by the army and the air force.
A US Government Accountability Office report issued last week said that of $5.8 billion in US support for anti-terrorism efforts in the Fata between 2002 and 2007, about 96 per cent had gone towards reimbursing the Pakistani military, three per cent on border security and one per cent on development aid projects.
Talking to Dawn, sources said the $5.8 billion Pakistan received from the CSF was reimbursement of what the country had already spent.
“It is not easy to deploy 100,000 troops in a troubled area,” said one diplomatic source. “Look, how the Americans are spending billions of dollars on maintaining troops in Iraq. If the Americans feel that the Iraq war is draining their resources, imagine how it affects Pakistan.”
“The life of every human being is precious,” said a diplomatic observer. “But the death of a Pakistani soldier gets no mention in the international media and that’s why people in the West feel that Pakistan is not doing enough.”
The CSF does not cover depreciation of equipment either, such as the Cobra helicopters used to monitor the Pak-Afghan border. The Pakistanis, however, are compensated for the money they spend on the soldiers, for fuel, ammunition and for flying sorties. Responding to the claim in the official US report that Pakistan was not spending the money it received from the CSF on development, a source said that this money was not meant for development.
“It is reimbursement and the Pakistanis are at liberty to use it for whatever they want to use it for,” the source said. “But the $750 million Pakistan is going to receive now is for the development of the Fata and the Americans will have every right to hold Pakistan accountable for that.”
Sources said that the continued criticism of the US reimbursement policy has forced the Bush administration to place new restriction on the disbursement of funds. “Payments have been delayed. Pakistan has not yet been reimbursed for some of the money it spent last year,” a source said.
Although put on the defensive by the US media and Congress, some Bush administration officials have recently pointed out that it was wrong to ask Pakistan to explain how they use the reimbursements.
US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told a recent congressional hearing that what Pakistanis receive from the CSF is their money and the US cannot tell them how to use it.
But the GAO notes that the Bush administration has stepped up its oversight of the direct security assistance in recent months.
From 2004 to early 2007, it deferred or rejected an average of just over 2 per cent of Pakistan’s reimbursement claims. But for the most recent set of claims, between March and June of 2007, that amount jumped to 20 per cent.
Karma: 467 [Add to karma]