最新ニュース | フォーラム | イギリスのニュース | 米国のニュース | 全体的なニュース | 政治ニュース | Sci技術のニュース | 戦争及びテロリズムのニュース | スポーツのニュース | マルチメディア | ホームページを置きなさい |
|
|
|
責任能力無しの援助の十億、
5月31日木曜日st 2007年
パキスタンはほとんどのポスト9/11米国を受け取る。 軍の資金は、けれどもアルカイダのTalibanのリーダーを探し出さなかった サラの城砦 新しい米国のためのポスト9/11の競争の逃亡の勝者。 ドルによってがパキスタン、ところにであるが軍事援助お金は行ったか。 パキスタンの政府の人権の行動主義者、評論家および国会議員はすべて知りたいと思うがお金のほとんどは-十億の総計事実上議会の手落ちに応じて国防省プログラムによって-来なかった。 それは公共の完全性の調査のジャーナリスト(ICIJ)の国際的な借款団のための中心によって調査の年以上の主要な見つけること行う。 米国. 2001年9月11日のテロリストの攻撃以来のパキスタンへの軍事援助は連合サポート資金にほぼ$5,000,000,000、恐怖の全世界戦争の主同盟国に返済するために国防省によって制御されるプログラムを含める。 米国国防総省はパキスタンがNOではないことを情報行為の要求の自由によって得られるICIJが示すことを報告する。 これらの1人の受け手資金- NOに行かなかった10倍以上量を受け取る。 2受け手、ポーランド-およびお金がいかにの使用されたかそこにそれは乏しいドキュメンテーションである。 パキスタンはまた2001の攻撃の影響で他の資金のメカニズムの組み立てから寄与した。 では攻撃、パキスタンが米国国防総省の新しい地方防衛反テロリズム団体プログラムの3番目に大きい受け手だった3年後、反テロリズムの技術の外国力を訓練するように設計されている。 $23以上,000,000は「セクション外国の軍隊を訓練し、装備するのに米国国防総省が議会からの年次資金の部分を使用するようにする1206年の訓練と通俗の言葉で言われた米国国防総省別の新しいプログラムの下の反対のテロリズムの殴打の機能」を改善するための会計2006年にパキスタンのために指定された。 パキスタンはこの新しい米国国防総省管理された訓練のための競争で最初に終わった。 ICIJのデータはそれを時すべての米国示す。 プログラムは、米国のパキスタンの増加結合される。 9/11が思いがけない45,000%だった3年後の軍事援助、3年のちょうど$9,000,000から3年の以上$4,000,000,000に攻撃の前に後なる。 プロセスでは、パキスタンはNOにならなかった。 米国の3受け手。 軍事訓練および援助、長い間のリーダーだけイスラエル共和国およびエジプト引きずる。 This tsunami of new funding reflects Pakistan’s key role in the U.S. global war on terror. Shortly after 9/11, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s leader, made a commitment to align his regime with the United States as it went after Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda forces that were being protected by the Islamist Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan. Since Musharraf closed ranks with the U.S., Pakistan’s financial rewards have been bountiful ― and he has been the target of several assassination attempts and plots. On a visit to the U.S. in 2006, Musharraf told television interviewers that he made the commitment to join the war on terror after threats from the U.S., which Bush administration officials have denied. More recently, the administration has accused Musharraf of turning a blind eye to Taliban and al Qaeda operations in his own country, and critics in the U.S. and abroad have assailed U.S. support for Musharraf. Pakistan is the sixth most populous country in the world, and, after Indonesia, the second largest Muslim-majority country. Violence and political instability have characterized the country throughout its history. Pakistan is teeming with intrigue; it is home to some of the world’s most vocal anti-American clerics and to religious schools that have served as recruiting grounds for the Taliban and other Islamist extremist groups. In tribal areas near the Afghanistan border, some leaders support the Taliban, and its largest province, Balochistan, has long been unstable and barely controlled by the central government in Islamabad. The U.S. State Department rates Pakistan’s human rights record as poor and reports a long litany of abuses. That nourishes critics’ claims that U.S. largesse has been put to abusive purposes, including to buy weapons that have been turned against Pakistani civilians and to offer bounties on suspects the U.S. is seeking. A key allyShortly after 9/11, Pakistan offered bases to the U.S. for its use in counterterrorism operations, banned numerous militant groups, began sharing intelligence and deployed tens of thousands of troops to tense regions, including the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan where al Qaeda leaders and Taliban remnants from Afghanistan were rumored to be hiding out. According to Sen. Sana Baloch, an opposition lawmaker who fled the country out of safety concerns, the U.S. has several military bases inside Pakistan including some in the senator’s home province of Balochistan. “Most of the U.S. bases are based in Balochistan,” Baloch told ICIJ in an interview. “One or two of them are in Kharan, my own home district. The U.S. is using the bases in this area for the war on terror. We are very supportive of the U.S. in this role.” In return for Pakistan’s assistance, in March 2005 the U.S. announced that it would resume sales of American F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan after a 16-year ban that had served to punish Pakistan for its clandestine nuclear weapons program. Pakistan also got debt write-offs, the reestablishment of U.S. military training programs and support for Musharraf’s administration despite concerns about his anti-democratic policies (Musharraf came to power through a military coup). Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs from 2001 to 2005, told ICIJ that U.S. policy is to pull Pakistan in closer. “Logistically,” he said, “we can’t overstate what we’ve been able to accomplish with Pakistan’s help.” Others aren’t so sure. In a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on March 1, 2007, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., raised concerns about an increase in attacks on coalition forces along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and about al Qaeda training camps reportedly given sanctuary inside Pakistan after the Pakistani central government made peace with local tribal leaders in the lawless region. Concerns about oversightThe majority of new U.S. funding to Pakistan has come in the form of billions of dollars of Coalition Support Funds (CSF), a post-9/11 funding mechanism created to reimburse key countries for expenses incurred in supporting American counterterrorism operations. According to K. Alan Kronstadt, an expert on South Asia at the Congressional Research Service, by August 2006, CSF accounted for roughly $4.75 billion of the military aid Pakistan received from the U.S. since the terrorist attacks. Pentagon documents obtained by ICIJ say the money that went to Pakistan was largely for “military operations on the Afghanistan border.” Coalition Support Funds are considered a reimbursement by some and a blank check by others. Craig Cohen, co-author of a recent Center for Strategic and International Studies study on U.S. aid to Pakistan, asked rhetorically whether CSF money is “intended to yield some sort of specific action on the part of the government,” adding, “If so, there’s clearly no oversight.” Olga Oliker, an expert on U.S. defense policy and co-author of a recent RAND think tank report on the human rights performance of internal security forces in South Asia, said she’s concerned that U.S.-made weapons that go to Pakistani security forces and U.S. training that the forces receive are being used against civilian populations. “In implementing assistance,” she told ICIJ, “the U.S. has paid relatively little attention to human rights abuses and oversight. People weren’t paying attention.” Baloch said that even as a senator, he did not have access to that information. A former U.S. official previously based in Pakistan, who has intimate knowledge of Pakistan’s CSF receipts, told ICIJ that, “Right from the beginning it was very difficult to pin down what the costs were and how they were computed. Initially there were very round numbers reported. Now figures are coming out with more specificity. Whether or not they are inflated, it’s difficult to get a handle on that.” Increased oversightThe new Democratic-controlled Congress has taken a greater interest in CSF payments to Pakistan. Under the previous GOP majority, there was virtually no oversight of CSF payments to any country. In January 2007, the House of Representatives acted to impose conditions on military aid to Pakistan by adopting the Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007. Section 1442 of the bill relates to Pakistan. It identifies areas of concern for U.S. policy, including the need for Pakistan to curb the proliferation of nuclear technology, to address the presence of the Taliban and other extremist forces and to secure its borders to prevent movement of terrorists. The bill would impose limits on foreign assistance to Pakistan, declaring that U.S. assistance may not be approved until “the President determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that the Government of Pakistan is making all possible efforts to prevent the Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control.” In addition, Pakistan would be required to demonstrate that it is making significant steps toward “free and fair parliamentary elections in 2007.” The bill also requires that the president submit a report describing the long-term strategy of U.S. engagement with Pakistan. The full Senate has yet to take up the legislation, and the White House has opposed the proposed restrictions on Pakistani assistance, saying that any conditions placed on Pakistan would be “counterproductive to the important goal … of fostering a closer relationship.” Regional contextFrom 1953 to 1961, during Cold War concerns about Soviet expansionism, Pakistan received nearly $2 billion (current dollars) from the U.S., one-quarter of which was military aid. Later, in the 1970s, concerns about Pakistan’s efforts to seek nuclear weapons led to a suspension of U.S. aid. Meanwhile, as a result of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, millions of Afghan refugees began to move across the border into Pakistan. Despite efforts to return them to their home country following the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, roughly 2½ million Afghan refugees remain in Pakistan, many afraid of what they might have to face upon their return. The current difficult relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan is due in part to the number of Afghan refugees in Pakistani territory; the disputed border separating the two states; Pakistan’s nuclear capability; and finally, the collaboration between sections of Pakistan’s powerful and controversial Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) with the Taliban. Fears regarding Pakistan’s nuclear program have again forced discussions about whether the U.S. should continue sending massive amounts of military assistance to Pakistan. That debate came into sharp focus with the 2004 confession by Abdul Qadeer Khan, also known as A.Q. Khan and considered the founder of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, that he had operated an illicit nuclear smuggling network to countries including North Korea, Iran and Libya. So far, the only punishment Khan has received from Pakistan is to have been placed under house arrest in Islamabad in what has been described as comfortable conditions. Kronstadt of CRS said of Khan, “The [A.Q. Khan] tentacles haven’t all been uncovered. At some level, the chain may still be in operation. The U.S. and IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] haven’t had access to him to this day.” Whose war?Hundreds of people were detained in Pakistan after 9/11, and some of them ended up in the U.S. naval prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. According to Amnesty International’s 2006 Annual Report, Pakistan’s security agencies continue to arbitrarily detain and arrest terrorist suspects. The tribal region of Balochistan is known for documented cases of human rights abuses. According to press reports, at least three Pakistani politicians from Balochistan are being held for reasons of political dissent. A former politician, Abdur Rauf Mengal, who resigned in protest after Baloch political leader Nawab Akbar Bugti was killed in August 2006, has been held in solitary confinement. “The American-supplied military arsenal has been used against Baloch nationalists,” Sen. Baloch told ICIJ. “Sophisticated helicopters bought to control the drug trade have been misused against the Baloch people.” He said he and others have gone to the State Department, “and the State Department says [the U.S. has] given military hardware with no conditions.” A former U.S. official previously based in Pakistan acknowledged to ICIJ that in Balochistan, “The [Pakistani] army stepped in with a pretty heavy hand last year.” Christine Fair, co-author of the RAND report and a South Asia expert at the U.S. Institute for Peace, said that the U.S. is nearsighted in its support for Musharraf. “I don’t think he’ll ever deliver what he says he will. The U.S. government is ‘all Musharraf all the time.’ And [the U.S. goal is] to keep him in place, to keep the army happy.” Says T. Kumar, advocacy director for Asia and Pacific at Amnesty International USA: “Pakistan is a solid dictatorship. The U.S. is being taken for a big ride. Musharraf is not the right person for the war. Powerful sections of the ISI [remain] involved with the Taliban. They’re waiting for time, biding their time.” Have Your Say: Billions in Aid, With No Accountability Please read our posting guidelines before posting. Alternatively you can discuss this report here. Related News
|
Ex spy chief says government risks "police state" Last post by Nostalgia @ 02:22 PM Go to Forum
| Latest Topics
Pirate Bay triumphant as prosecution drops half of charges Last post by Nostalgia @ 02:20 PM Activists arrested because of UK Indymedia secret IP logging Last post by Unregistered @ 01:56 PM Householders to be charged for each flush of toilet Last post by Victor @ 01:35 PM Study takes step toward erasing bad memories Last post by Nostalgia @ 01:32 PM DNA left at crime scene could be used to create picture of criminal's FACE, say scien Last post by Nostalgia @ 01:24 PM UK mobile phone firms to sell data about customer activity Last post by Nostalgia @ 01:17 PM Nano Ink 'Tattoo' Could Monitor Diabetes Last post by Nostalgia @ 01:14 PM Can geo-engineering rebuild the planet? Last post by Nostalgia @ 01:08 PM Discussing a cashless society Last post by Nostalgia @ 12:18 PM  Email This Page To A Friend Latest Headlines
More Breaking News  Archive
|
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. News Forum |
Loading ...
