Obama admin opposes stiff conditions on Pakistan for aid

WASHINGTON: The Obama administrationhas said it is opposed to the Congressional move to impose stiff conditions onPakistan for the massive financial aid which the United States is proposing togive to the Zardari government. Testifying before Congressionalcommittee, top officials of the Obama administration said they believe such astrong language of conditions as put in the Pakistan Enduring Assistance andCooperation Enhancement (PEACE) Act of 2009 is not in the interest of the UnitedStates and might backfire. The PEACE Act was introduced in the USHouse of Representatives early this April by chairman of the House Committee onForeign Affairs, Howard Berman. The bill proposes to triple non-military aid toPakistan for the next five years, but at the same time moves to make thePakistani establishment more accountable. Blog: Is Pakistan heading for an Islamic Revolution?It conditions Pakistan to stop sponsoring and aidingterrorists operating against India form its soil, take action against groupsresponsible for the Mumbai terrorist attacks and that A Q Khan, the roguePakistani nuclear scientist, be subject to interrogation by Americanintelligence. Appearing before the House Armed Services Committee,Michele A Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy, said, "secretary (ofdefense Robert) Gates and Chairman (of Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike)Mullen have written a joint letter to chairman (Armed Services Committee Ike)Skelton and (the ranking member John) McHugh expressing our concerns about thebill." Flournoy said the letter has "applauded the bill for itsdesire to increase assistance to Pakistan and to do so in a comprehensive andintegrated way, but voiced concern about some of the specifically inflexiblelanguage on conditionality". The views were expressed even in herprepared statement submitted to the committee. "While we applaud the goal ofincreasing accountability, we believe that HR 1886 is too inflexible, especiallywith regard to the conditions and limits it would place on the equipment wewould provide to our Pakistani partners," she said. "In our view, HR1886 would severely constrain the executive branch and reduce our ability toadapt to the fluid situation on the ground," Flournoy said. However, she saidthe Obama administration supports the approach to accountability as set forth inthe Biden-Lugar Bill introduced in the last Congress. "We arecommitted to continuously evaluating our own performance, as well as that of ourPakistani partners. And to that end, we are developing measures of effectivenessthat will allow us and you to hold us and our Pakistan partners accountable,"Flournoy said. However, Berman defended his bill. "I get theimpression that those criticising my bill haven't actually read it. It doesn'tinclude any rigid or inflexible conditions," he said in a statement."We are simply asking the president to hold the Pakistanisaccountable for their commitments to fight the terrorists who threaten their andour national security," Berman said. Appearing before the sameCongressional committee James Winnfield, director of strategic plans and policy,Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: "We believe that publicly attaching conditions toour support will be detrimental to building Pakistani will to fight, and it willultimately erode the trust that we're trying to build between our two nations."Rather, he said, the Obama administration believe that privateengagement between "our senior leadership is really the key to encouraging ourpartners, the Pakistanis, to use the assistance that we give to them wisely"."So we appreciate the committee's willingness to consider this sortof unusual enactment of authority. We believe we can't afford to wait until nextyear to obtain the flexibility and agility that it provides to General Petraeus.Accordingly, we ask for your support in accelerating its implementation. We willensure that the accountability measures are in place, so that these funds goexactly where they're intended to go," he said.