Obama signs Kerry-Lugar-Berman

[ProSense]

STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY ON THE SIGNING OF KERRY-LUGAR-BERMAN

Earlier today at the White House, the President signed into law the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, also known as "Kerry-Lugar-Berman."

This law is the tangible manifestation of broad support for Pakistan in the U.S., as evidenced by its bipartisan, bicameral, unanimous passage in Congress.

As President Obama said on March 27, the United States wants to engage Pakistan on the basis of a strategic partnership, "grounded in support for Pakistan's democratic institutions and the Pakistani people." This Act formalizes that partnership, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through sustainable economic development, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and combating the extremism that threatens Pakistan and the United States.

Edited, oops

[Clio the Leo]

1. This MEANS something....

.... I just dont know what yet.

I THINK it's a good thing ...... maybe. (And I mean in regards to Afghanistan.) Is it the first leg of Joe's strategy?

[Clio the Leo]

2. And coupled with the news that an Afghan run-off vote is likely....

..... good news.... I think.

[Engineer4Obama]

3. If Karzai loses

The government under Karzai will not be viewed as legitimate regardless of what happens.

[Clio the Leo]

6. And that's what I think will happen.....

These two things cant be a coincidence....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8702083#8702096

http://www.chicoer.com/news/national/ci_13569394

One of the complicating factors in deciding on a new strategy in Afghanistan was the inconclusive August election where widespread fraud was reported.

Afghanistan's former finance minister Ashraf Ghani, a longshot candidate in the August poll, said he expected an election announcement on Friday or Saturday.

Ghani said it was most likely the incumbent president, Hamid Karzai, would not be declared the winner due to fraud uncovered by the electoral authorities and there would have to be a run-off between the two main candidates.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/10/15/us/politics/politics-us-afghanistan-usa.html

[rhett o rick]

5. Looks to me like more war. We are going to help Pakistan to fight insurgents. Tellme i am wrong. nt

[Clio the Leo]

7. Well if you call that "more war" what do you call....

.... an al Qaeda in possesion of dirty bombs?

Do they have a soverign right to dirty bombs? Maybe we should just have Hillary meet with al Qaeda's foreign minister. ;)

[rhett o rick]

8. Please please let me misunderstand you. Are you saying that this will prevent al Qaeda from having

dirty bombs? IMO al Qaeda can do dirty bombs today. You dont need nuclear warheads to make dirty bombs. But if you mean that we should try to keep al Qaeda from getting control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, that's another thing. But it still sounds a lot like the bush argument for invading Iraq. I know it's not the same but we must be careful how far we go killing people to insure our safety.

[Clio the Leo]

10. You may not need warheads, but Uranium comes in handy....

.... and unlike Iraq's Osirak facility that we took out in 1991 .... which played a part in making W's arguments total BS ..... Pakistan has nine locations I'm sure al Qaeda would LOVE to be in control of....

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/PakistanFacilities_static.shtml



An article you might find interesting...
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Afghanistan-Pakistan/idUSTRE54D1RC20090515

It must be very difficult for the President trying to figure out how he's going to rationalize any of his possible next moves. "So, Pakistan has these nuclear facilities .... no, really, this time we're serious..."

Dick Cheney has harmed this country in more ways than anyone can imagine.

[rhett o rick]

25. I agree that al Queda would love to get nuclear warheads. But they can get what they need for dirty

bombs from a lot of sources.

[Clio the Leo]

31. Okey doke ....... examples? NT

[karynnj]

34. He actually might be right - that was the motivation for Nunn/Lugar

and the successor Obama/Lugar bills where the US has bought nuclear material to get it under control. There was substantial fear after the fall of the Soviet Union that their nuclear material, which was spread over the successor states could be not sufficiently secure.

One of the conditions in this bill that the Pakistanis had problems with dealt with A. Q. Khan. The fact is that no one person, that I know of, is as responsible for the spread of nuclear technology and material.

[karynnj]

15. This bill has nothing to do with attacks on Al Qaeda

Here is a list of myths and facts, Senator Kerry wrote to fight lies the military tried to spread.

Myth: The $7.5 billion authorised by the bill comes with strings attached for the people of Pakistan.

Fact: There are no conditions on Pakistan attached to these funds. There are, however, strict measures of financial accountability on these funds that Congress is imposing on the US executive branch — not the Pakistani government, to make sure the money is being spent properly and for the purposes intended.

Such accountability measures have been welcomed by Pakistani commentators to ensure that funds meant for schools, roads and clinics actually reach the Pakistani people and are not wasted.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/04-Myths-and-facts-Kerry-Lugar-bill-qs-02

[Cha]

18. I was just wondering how the Pakistani

people in the US would view this..seems liked they'd be happy for the folks back home.

[karynnj]

19. I have been googgling stuff for the last week or so, but have not

heard what the opinion of US Pakistanis is. (If you are interested, I created two threads in DU JK. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x159876

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x159825

I was trying to make sense of what was happening. It really is landmark legislation. It will be interesting to see whether this typpe of support can make Pakistan more stable and the military less powerful. If they can be moved not to sponsor terrorism in India, this could really change the dynamics there.

[Clio the Leo]

20. There is definately something going on.....

..... the President's life-long friendship with two Pakistanis (whith whom he spent part of the summer between his freshman and sophomore years in college.) Coupled with first state dinner by the Obamas featuring the Singhs .... now add in this .... these are not all random occurences.

I think it's a GOOD thing.... I just dont know what it is. :)

It certainly doesn't scream "massive troop increase is coming!!!" I know that.

[Cha]

22. Thanks, karyn..yes, I am interested. I

thought of Pakistani cab drivers in NYC who work hard to send money home and it seems like this could only be a good thing for those back home.

It would be amazing to actually help a country be more stable without the US supporting the military coups to further their interests.

[ProSense]

9. It's non-military aid. It has nothing to do with war. It's an attempt to get aid to

people instead of what happened during the Bush years: most of the aid was diverted to the military.

[Clio the Leo]

11. EVERYTHING we do on the international stage has to do with war....

... or, more importantly, keeping us out of it.

[karynnj]

14. You are wrong - This is not a MILITARY funding bill, it is a NON-MILLITARY funding bill

Here are 2 links to read what it is:
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Afghanistan-Pakistan/idUSTRE59E6XL20091015

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=273x159876

It is hard to overstate the potential importance of this - It may end up being one of four most important bills passed this year - with the healthcare, the stimulus, and the global warming bills being the others.

[rhett o rick]

24. Interesting that you exclaim that I am wrong. I did not claim this was a MILITARY FUNDING BILL. As

you so graciously yelled at me. I merely suggested that history shows that when we propose to: "combating the extremism that threatens Pakistan and the United States", that usually means troops and war. I hope I am wrong. But after Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, there seems to be good reason to be skeptical.

[karynnj]

26. What about the Marshall plan?

The fact is that we did not first give Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan non- military aid before going to war. And we did give aid to most of Europe under the Marshall plan - and then didn't invade.

[rhett o rick]

27. The Marshall Plan was two life times ago. I am not saying it is impossible, just saying I dont trus

t America not to send troops into Pakistan to "combating the extremism that threatens Pakistan and the United States". We have a terrible track record. President Obama is talking about increasing troop levels in a war we should not be in. I dont see any indication that we are not going to continue to expand our presence in that area. I hope you are right.

[karynnj]

28. Two life times ago? That really makes me feel pretty old - as I am just 2 years younger than it

I do get that there is the potential for the war in Afghanistan to creep over a border, especially as the area agent to Afghanistan includes the lawless area. But, this has absolutely nothing to do with giving them aid. In fact, it seems clear that it is done, both for humanitarian reasons and because Kerry and others have talked of their belief that if you make life less desperate, so people feel they have a vested interest in peace, there will be fewer who are recruited as terrorists. This is an attempt to reach the people by making their lives better.

[rhett o rick]

29. Then you're just a kid. I am 2 years older. Ok, I agree with you.

I think the idea here is great. I believe in helping people and not shooting them. And I believe Sen Kerry has good motives. I am skeptical because of the President's plan to move more troops into the area. I as you well remember Vietnam. We mustn't make that mistake again. Thanks for the polite dialog.

[karynnj]

30. I think all of us, who are our age do see these things through the prisim of Vietnam

I have been surprised at the number of times this year that Senator Kerry has referred to Vietnam - especially in his op-ed where he spoke of the need to carefully examine all the assumptions to insure that the policy is right - as was not done in Vietnam. It is scary especially as the stakes are higher if Pakistan becomes this generation's "Cambodia" or "Laos".

[rhett o rick]

33. Agree, Cambodia or Laos with nuclear weapons. nt

[karynnj]

13. You might be right on that -though I would say that this is also Kerry's strategy

(It is very close to things Kerry has recommended in many countries (Lebanon, Iraq, and the West Bank to name three) for years. If anything, he likely sold Biden on the idea of both the scope of the aid and the explicit message that ultimately this is their battle. )

The bill is an attempt to support Pakistan in moving towards stability. Kerry has spoken about how this bill started when Biden was chair of the SFRC. In a Pakistani article, he spoke of how it started when Biden, Hagel and Kerry oversaw the election in Pakistan. Their idea was that help rebuilding the infrastructure, education etc as friendly support of what was the new elected government.

This really is an ambitious bill - here is a Newsweek article describing it's importance.

President Obama is on the verge of signing legislation that would grant $7.5 billion in new aid to Pakistan over the next five years, most of it in the form of economic assistance designed to strengthen the alliance and induce Pakistan to move more aggressively against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Embedded in the legislation is a clear-cut goal: to reduce the overweening influence of the Pakistani Army on the nation's politics and to bolster the longer-term prospects of a moderate, democratic civilian regime. The principal sponsors of this legislation, Sens. John Kerry and Richard Lugar, believe that supporting the civilian government of Prime Minister Asif Ali Zardari—who replaced the latest of many Pakistani military regimes only 20 months ago—can help solidify the emergence of a stable democracy and a prosperous economy. In effect, this law seeks to break with a past that in the eyes of many Pakistanis proves that the U.S. has been a fickle friend, willing to back dictators in Islamabad when they served American interests.

<snip>
The Kerry-Lugar legislation is ambitious—to say the least—in its attempt to transform the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. This is especially the case given the fragility of the present civilian regime, the inefficacy of Pakistan's institutions of governance, and the cupidity of its military establishment. Not surprisingly, the military establishment can be counted on to marshal every possible argument against any diminution of its long-held prerogatives. It has already started to stoke nationalist fervor by insinuating that the U.S. is behaving like a neocolonial power. The Obama administration cannot allow the Pakistani military to derail this new course of action, its objections and hypernationalist posturing notwithstanding.

Without a steady abandonment of support for homegrown Islamist radicals, and a gradual strengthening of civilian institutions, the prospect of endemic political instability and violence in Pakistan and the region looms large. Such an outlook would bode ill for restoring even a semblance of political order in Afghanistan and would herald a return to the untold horrors of a Taliban-dominated country.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/217022

This last week, the military in Pakistan created an uproar over the "conditions", distorting them - and, in fact, completely making stuff up. Yesterday, Kerry and Berman met with a Pakistani diplomat and wrote an "explanation" which made it clear what the intent of the bill was. This satisfied the Pakistani government and Obama signed it today.

Here is an article that speaks both of that letter and explains the bill.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. in a statement announcing the law had been signed, said it was the "tangible manifestation of broad support for Pakistan in the U.S."

Gibbs said Obama wants to engage Pakistan on the basis of a strategic partnership "grounded in support for Pakistan's democratic institutions and the Pakistani people."

"This act formalizes that partnership, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through sustainable economic development, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and combating the extremism that threatens Pakistan and the United States."

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Afghanistan-Pakistan/idUSTRE59E6XL20091015

Here's a little audio clip

http://talkradionews.com/2009/10/kerry-explains-addition-to-aid-bill/

[ProSense]

16. Good stuff. Here is a photo of Kerry and Pakistan's Foreign Minister

U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) meets with Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Quereshi (L)
in the Capitol Building in Washington October 13, 2009.

[karynnj]

17. Nice photo of both, especially the taller one

That must have been an incredibly busy day for Kerry. Now he is in Afghanistan and will go to Pakistan. I was amazed how much he was doing to try to counter opposition to the bill in Pakistan. I was amused that he had what seemed like the "Truth Strikes Back" stuff he has used in here!

[Clio the Leo]

21. Well .... these men do not live in a bubble....

.... no way some of the most like-minded and decent men in DC (Obama, Biden, Kerry) wouldn't be commiserating on the matter .... makes it a bit easier to sleep at night, doesn't it?

[karynnj]

23. I agree that it does

In addition, it is very good knowing that Obama has at least 2 people who are turning all the intelligence, experience and focus on this, who will give him their honest assessments. President Obama will be the one who ultimately has to make this decision between several options, none of which will be easy.

[denem]

4. It's actually counter productive. $7.5 billion tied to Pakistan taking on 'The Terrorists'.

The Pakistani military, even while considering an all out offensive against the local Taliban is fiercely nationalistic, with a absolute contempt for doing the United State's bidding.

[Honeycombe8]

12. Not sure I understand the whole thing, but what you say is the gist I got out of it. nt

[karynnj]

32. This is a bill intended to help the elected government, not the military

The bigger conditions were that Pakistan use the money for the designated purposes - to build roads, schools, etc. Here is a link to an article that explains the internal politics in Pakistan. The reason they put in a strict requirement that they use the money as intended is that a July report shows that from 2001 - 2007, only a small amount of the aid was NOT diverted.

The Pakistani military sees this for what it is - an attempt to empower the elected government. That is why they created this PR attack against it. (Think teabaggers or the Insurance company with its dishonest study released last Monday and its ads - only armed)

In the meantime the military launched a massive public relations exercise, briefing sympathetic TV talk show hosts and journalists, who were encouraged to whip up public opinion against the bill.

<snip>
It would be the first time in the history of the relationship between the US and Pakistan that Washington would be giving so much money to a civilian government - in the past it had lavished its cash on military regimes.
<snip>

There had clearly been ample opportunities for the army to voice any objections to the bill months before.

Moreover, the US bill was critical to convince the European and Arab donors to give more aid to Pakistan. They have held up some $5bn in aid, waiting for the Americans to commit their money first.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8309532.stm

What seems clear is the military wants a puppet and Zardari is not acting as one. From this you can see that the military fears that the bill could strengthen the civilian government.

You have bought the Pakistani military's message hook, line and sinker.