TOKYO MASTER BANNER

MINISTRY OF TOKYO
US-ANGLO CAPITALISMEU-NATO IMPERIALISM
Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies
Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships
Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY
[LINK | Article]

*U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR*

Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
[info from Craig Murray video appearance, follows]  US-Anglo Alliance DELIBERATELY STOKING ANTI-RUSSIAN FEELING & RAMPING UP TENSION BETWEEN EASTERN EUROPE & RUSSIA.  British military/government feeding media PROPAGANDA.  Media choosing to PUBLISH government PROPAGANDA.  US naval aggression against Russia:  Baltic Sea — US naval aggression against China:  South China Sea.  Continued NATO pressure on Russia:  US missile systems moving into Eastern Europe.     [info from John Pilger interview follows]  War Hawk:  Hillary Clinton — embodiment of seamless aggressive American imperialist post-WWII system.  USA in frenzy of preparation for a conflict.  Greatest US-led build-up of forces since WWII gathered in Eastern Europe and in Baltic states.  US expansion & military preparation HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED IN THE WEST.  Since US paid for & controlled US coup, UKRAINE has become an American preserve and CIA Theme Park, on Russia's borderland, through which Germans invaded in the 1940s, costing 27 million Russian lives.  Imagine equivalent occurring on US borders in Canada or Mexico.  US military preparations against RUSSIA and against CHINA have NOT been reported by MEDIA.  US has sent guided missile ships to diputed zone in South China Sea.  DANGER OF US PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKES.  China is on HIGH NUCLEAR ALERT.  US spy plane intercepted by Chinese fighter jets.  Public is primed to accept so-called 'aggressive' moves by China, when these are in fact defensive moves:  US 400 major bases encircling China; Okinawa has 32 American military installations; Japan has 130 American military bases in all.  WARNING PENTAGON MILITARY THINKING DOMINATES WASHINGTON. ⟴  
Showing posts with label US Aid to Pakistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Aid to Pakistan. Show all posts

August 11, 2014

INDIA - US WANTS TO LINE UP TRADE, PROFIT AND REGIONAL CONTROL



Uncle Sam’s worldview

Hussain H Zaidi
Monday, August 11, 2014
From Print Edition

[...]

The US wants to preserve the existing global order based on liberalism. The US also realises that although it is the lone superpower, it cannot control world affairs independently. It needs regional partners or allies, particularly those believing in economic and political liberalism (Japan and South Korea in East Asia, India in South Asia), to control the world.

The political expression of liberalism is democracy, while its economic expression is free market economy. Democracy is advocated mainly because it is useful for promoting American interests as autocratic regimes are more likely to breed extremism and terrorism – at present the most potent threat to the US-dominated global order – than representative ones.

By the same token, free market economy is advocated because it best suits American companies engaged in international business. Promoting the political interests of the US government and the economic interests of domestic firms is the pivot on which the American policy revolves. And given India’s political and economic credentials it finely fits into this scheme

Hence the repeated statements from the US leadership that India – the largest democracy, the world's second largest market, and a nuclear and a rising economic power – is their strategic partner and a natural ally. Washington believes that New Delhi has to play a leading role in achieving durable peace and stability in the region, which is necessary for preserving the global order.

Indo-US economic and commercial relations are growing. Merchandise trade between the two countries has gone up from $35 billion in 2009 to $63 billion in 2013 including $22 billion exports from the USA and $41 billion exports from India. This gives India a trade surplus of $19 billion – the country's largest trade surplus with any country. For India, the US is the single largest export market and the 5th largest source of imports. The US would like to push up its exports and investment in India and take a larger pie of the enormous Indian market.

Coming back to Kerry's recent visit to India, the first US cabinet level visit after the change of the guards in New Delhi, the occasion was the fifth session of the annual strategic dialogue between the two countries. The latest round itself is being seen as preparing the groundwork for Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the US next month. The joint statement issued at the end of the strategic dialogue, inter alia, reaffirmed US support to India's efforts to have a permanent seat on the UNSC; reiterated the “commitment to eliminating terrorist safe havens and infrastructure, and disrupting terrorist networks including Al-Qaeda and the Lashkar-e-Taiba” and asked “Pakistan to work toward bringing the perpetrators of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks to justice.”

As the joint statement shows, any account of US-India relations is incomplete without mentioning Pakistan. At least on paper, the US and Pakistan are also strategic partners and encouraging phrases such as ‘enduring partnership’, ‘shared goals’ and ‘mutual interest and respect’ are employed to characterise Washington-Islamabad ties as well. Yet the two sets of relations are different in terms of both the scale and the dynamics.

New Delhi's much bigger economic muscles aside, several irritants have held back the Washington-Islamabad [Pakistan] relations. Take the war on terror. The US has long suspected that in the counterterrorism campaign, Pakistan has been hunting with the hounds and running with the hare. Although the ongoing military operation in North Waziristan, a long-standing US demand, will serve to dampen such suspicion, concerns regarding Pakistan being ‘soft’ on, if not allegedly supporting, non-state actors' involvement in cross-border terrorism is not likely to die down.

Likewise, Washington has not conceded to Islamabad's [Pakistan's] demand for transfer of nuclear technology, because it suspects Islamabad does not have a clean record in non-proliferation. The US mediation on Kashmir on Pakistan's terms is also out of the question, as India has been successful in having the world see the militancy in the disputed territory as an expression of religious extremism. It is precisely for this reason that China, also facing religious uprising in its Muslim majority province of Xinjiang, no more supports Pakistan's Kashmir stance.

Islamabad, on its part, complains that it has not been adequately compensated for the economic loss caused by the war on terror; that the US aid has too many strings attached to it and is cut off arbitrarily; that at times its sovereignty has been violated by American forces; that Americans have been oblivious to its major demands including a civil nuclear technology agreement – similar to the one with India – having UNSC resolutions on Kashmir implemented, and granting preferential market access to Pakistan exports in what is their single largest destination.

Pakistan's problem is not that it's smaller than India but that it is an unstable society governed by a fragile political system – a fatal combination. The position held by such a country in a world power's worldview is qualitatively different from that occupied by a much more stable country. Hence, whereas the US interest in Islamabad consists mainly in the war on terror and nuclear non proliferation, New Delhi has a much larger role to play in Washington's scheme of things.


EXRACTS ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-266459-Uncle-Sams-worldview




Sounds like the US uses the same old 'partnership' spiel on everyone.

US interest in forming 'partnerships' is to maintain control on a global scale, for US political interests and US corporate interests.

US also wants stability (undisrupted trade) and some of that Indian trade surplus cash.

It appears to have a different relationship with Pakistan, due to the 'fragile political system' in Pakistan.

The US interest in Pakistan is (a) suppression of 'terror' and (b) nuclear non-proliferation.

Sore points for Pakistan are:
  • Kashmir
  • Insufficient compensation for economic losses (Pakistan bound up in military / 'war on terror' US directives)
  • US aid - many strings attached; arbitrary.
  • US military violation of Pakistan's sovereignty
  • Oblivious to Pakistan demands:
  • civil nuclear technology agreement
  • Implementation of US Security Council resolutions - Kashmir
  • the granting of preferential market access to Pakistan exports
-------------------------------------------------

Found this article an interesting one.

Unfamiliar with the 'war on terror' aspects and with the issue in Kashmir, but aware from other articles/sources that much of the US aid to Pakistan is spent on military rather than economic purposes.

US isn't intrinsically interested in democracy.  

US wants (a) regional stability (b) stable trade (c) free markets (d) strategic and political global control -- and this, by and large, is all about serving corporate American interests.


....................................................................

Checking out Google images out of curiosity, came across some scary looking stuff going on in Pakistan.  
Looks like there's bombings.
Appear to be ordinary people who have got massive guns (machine guns?).  
Loads of violence.


August 01, 2014

US AID TO PAKISTAN - PAKISTAN STAND ON FOOD SECURITY - WTO TRADE FACILITATION AGREEMENT


US ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE and MILITARY AID TO PAKISTAN

  • Commenced shortly after the country’s creation in 1947
  • US obligated nearly $67 billion (in constant 2011 dollars) to Pakistan between 1951 and 2011
  • 2009 US renewed commitment to Pakistan
  • US approved the Enhanced Partnership for Pakistan Act 
(commonly known as the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, or KLB)
Act authorized a tripling of US economic and development-related assistance to Pakistan, or $7.5 billion over five years (FY2010 to FY2014).

Between FY2002 and FY2009, only 30 percent of US foreign assistance to Pakistan was appropriated for economic-related needs; the remaining 70 percent was allocated to security-related assistance.

Since the KLB authorization (FY2010 through the FY2014 budget request), 41 percent of assistance has been allocated for economic-related assistance. [So that would mean military assistance exceeds economic]

US aid pledged to Pakistan remains significant compared to funding for other development initiatives. 

US $1.16 billion request for foreign assistance to Pakistan exceeds requests for:
  • Global Hunger and Food Security initiative ($1.06 billion);
  • Millennium Challenge Corporation ($0.90 billion);
  • Global Climate Change initiative ($0.48 billion). 
  • US $1.6 billion request for foreign assistance to Pakistan:
  • not far behind the requested $1.36 billion for the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA)
which makes loans and grants to the world’s 81 poorest countries and is the single largest source of development finance in these locations.
Source:  Greenbook - obtained from site:  CGDEV.ORG

Pakistan is the fourth largest recipient of US assistance, trailing Israel, Afghanistan, and Egypt. 

US has pledged seven times more aid to Pakistan than to Bangladesh, a neighboring country with a comparable population size and similar development needs.

US largest contributor, nearly a third of total Official Development Assistance (ODA) to Pakistan (30 projects total commitment $5 billion), followed by:
  • World Bank’s International Development Association (21 percent of total ODA);
  • Japan (14 percent);
  • United Kingdom (8 percent); and
  • EU Institutions (4 percent).
Asian Development Bank (ADB) is Pakistan’s biggest multilateral partner, providing assistance of $4.4 billion from 2009 through 2012.

IMF disbursed credit worth $5.2 billion to Pakistan from FY2008 to FY2010 following the 2008 economic crises. 

In 2011 the Government of Pakistan decided to end the IMF program, but following the country’s civilian election in May 2013 the new government, led by the Pakistani Muslim League (Nawaz), has entered into a new provisional agreement with the Fund worth $6.6 billion for a bailout package for FY2013-2016. 

Although the IMF and Pakistan have an ‘unhappy history’, the new government is said to have little choice due to its balance of payments crisis and sharply declining foreign exchange reserves.

Extracts Only -  Source -   http://www.cgdev.org/page/aid-pakistan-numbers



In an earlier post - here - it was noted that a World Trade Organisation (WTO) 'Trade Facilitation Agreement', freeing up trade to bring TRILLIONS into the world economy, is being negotiated.

India, Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela are seeking to increase public stockholding for food security.

WTO stipulates no more than 10%' value of food/grains production to be allocated to 'public stockholdings'.

However, this is based on calculations dating back to 1986-1988 and therefore not in step with inflation figures.

While India is staying strong in the negotiations, asking for a permanent solution on food security, US Secretary of State, John Kerry is unsympathetic and playing games with peoples lives:

Secretary of state John Kerry, before starting for India on Wednesday morning, had expressed the hope that India’s opposition to TFA would wither away, adding that this was a test case for the country’s commitment to advance liberalisation of global trade and investment.  [source - here]

Hmmmm ... let's see, 'test case' for 'liberalisation of global trade' VERSUS 'food security' ... and John Kerry's hoping these countries' food needs are just going to 'wither away'?

Never mind food.  Let's make PROFIT and let's sell WEAPONS.

China and Pakistan, also parties to the proposed agreement, are ready to sign the WTO trade agreement set before them.

China, I figured, is cashed up.  Oddly, it's not very community minded for a communist nation (or are they no longer communists?).

What's Pakistan's story?

Pakistan looks like it's 'owned' by 'US and company', judging by the amount of US financial support it has received and continues to receive, as well as financial support from US allies and the IMF.


What I found shocking is that the amount of US support Pakistan has received is almost as much as the US contribution request for World Bank's allocation to 81 of the world's poorest countries!

Apparently, large portions of the US aid in Pakistan go on military spending.

The guess is that the US supplies Pakistan with arms, so the money would go from the US public purse back to back to US private military manufacturing companies.

What I'm unclear about is what is a freebie and what is repayable by Pakistan.

It looks like there may be non-reimbursable portions of US aid, which is what?  Is that non-repayable?

Well if 'reimbursable' is repayable, non-reimbursable must be non-repayable


Until 1990, the United States provided military aid to Pakistan to modernize its conventional defensive capability. The United States allocated about 40% of its assistance package to non-reimbursable credits for military purchases, the third-largest program behind Israel and Egypt.

The remainder of the aid program was devoted to economic assistance.

Sanctions put in place in 1990 denied Pakistan further military assistance due to the discovery of its program to develop nuclear weapons. Sanctions were tightened following Pakistan's nuclear tests in response to India's May 1998 tests and the military coup of 1999. The events of September 11, 2001 and Pakistan's quick agreement to support the United States led to a waiving of the sanctions, and military assistance resumed to provide spare parts and equipment to enhance Pakistan's capacity to police its western border. In 2003, President Bush announced that the United States would provide Pakistan with $3 billion in economic and military aid over 5 years. This assistance package commenced during FY 2005. [source - US Dept of State - http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/pakistan/47936.htm]

Receipt of non-repayable money sounds pretty good.  Send some my way.  LOL.
 
As for the Nuclear weapons?  We're all doomed! 

Anyway, that's a bit of a fill-in on Pakistan, which might be handy if you're anything like me and clueless about what's going on.  LOL.