Reality of Total US Aid to Pakistan US$ 22.87 billion from 1950 – 2015

502

By Dr Shahid Qureshi -:

I said in BBC News program with Bill Daley, White House Chief of Staff with President Obama: “US is like Hedgehog it hurts even when it wants to be nice to you”. US gave Pakistan US$ 22 billion in over 65 years in aid but spending over US$28 billion in Afghanistan every month to catch 150 Al-Qaida suspects.

The US aid to Pakistan has proven to be a ‘rip off and fraud’ by financial terrorists of Wall Street. System of neo-colonization was designed to occupy countries remotely by installing a political ‘puppet’ and hiring the whole army by ‘installing and/or buying a General without physically present in the country. Once that happen an army of civil servants is ready to serve the masters by pushing the self-harming policies and anti-state measures.

As Chinese says, “fish starts rotten from the head”. So, the delivery boys and girls with foreign passports and Green Cards shoot down any constructive measure goes on in Pakistan otherwise how is it possible that all the agreements and contracts goes in favour of the foreigners USA and others from SEATO and SENTO defence pacts to dealings in so called ‘war on terror’, that damaged Pakistan over US$ 170 billion from 2001 – 2018.

The elite of Pakistan’s national interests are linked with their personal wealth hidden abroad than people living in Pakistan. There is no doubt that US has caused more than $170 billion losses to Pakistan since 2001. On the other hand, only aided/lend or both $22.87 billion from 1950 to 2010. Most part of that aid never arrived in Pakistan as it was paid to US defence and military industrial complexes back in the USA.  This rip off could only be possible if people mentioned above have prostituted themselves for personal interests.

Breakdown of US aid as reported: total US Aid: $22.87 billion in 64 years & losses to Pakistan: $170 billion

1950-1964     2.5bn economic and 500 m military aid

1965-1979     2.55 billion economic and 26 million military

1980-1990     5 billion military and economic aid

1991-2000     429 million economic and $5.2 million military

2001-2009     3.6 billion economic and 9 billion military

2009-2015     7.5 billion approved under Kerry Lugar Bill aid mostly non-military ($1.5 billion per year)

Almost all the regimes of Pakistan have been prostituting with the enemies by deliberately harming the state of Pakistan and following IMF agenda e.g. gas and electric shortages to destroy the industrial infrastructure, Railways and Pakistan Steel. They have ignored the risks and challenges concerning the US lead military occupation of Afghanistan and drone attacks on Pakistan. Pakistan has suffered approximately $170 billion economic, human losses, structural damages to roads and bridges deployed more than 147,800 troops conducting combat operations in the tribal areas along the Afghan border. The Pakistan armed forces have lost soldiers, security personals and citizens.

See Program link:

Dr Shahid Qureshi on BBC Program with Bill Daley White House Chief of Staff discussion on Military Aid to Pakistan. 

Sometimes international hostile states share their assets for multiple use. The Indo-US alliance in Afghanistan shared their assets in Pakistan from politician, to civil servants to military as well as elite of the country. It became so bad that Majeed Nizami editor of the Nawa-e-waqat a closest ally of Nawaz Sharif had to remark that they used to regard Benazir Bhutto as a ‘security risk’, it seemed Nawaz Sharif was a greater security risk. He was indeed the worst thing that had happened to Pakistan since independence. Whether it was money, morals or security, the nation found it difficult to trust him. His speech at SAFMA attracted lot of controversies. MNS don’t believe in reading and learning? It is interesting that when Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri freedom fighters were battling against the Indian army on the freezing heights of Kargil, Nawaz Sharif’s business proxies were selling sugar to India. India did not need to import any sugar and yet if Vajpayee had accepted to buy Pakistani sugar it was only to sweeten his relationship with Nawaz Sharif.

It is highly significant that when the Kargil crisis broke out both George Fernandez and K S Sudarshan, the former a socialist and India’s defence minister and the later leader of BJP militant wing RSS themselves exculpate Nawaz Sharif of any blame. If the Indians were trying to protect Nawaz Sharif, they must have had very good reasons to do so. It is this selfish and opportunist behaviour that made these leaders make decisions against the interests of Pakistani state?

Take the example of US aid to Pakistan and kind of work these people agree to do in return. More recently angry and sarcastic attitude of Nawaz Sharif against the military is deplorable, when thousands of soldiers have lost their lives while his sons and nephews are doing multimillion dollar businesses abroad. Pakistani politicians including Nawaz Sharif can only have moral high ground on others.

On the other hand, United States has 200 million reasons to worry about Pakistan which are more dangerous than the nuclear arsenal and that is young and resilient population. A secret intelligence assessment prepared by the CIA in February 1984 – ‘Middle East – South Asia: Population Problems and Political Stability’- worried about age structures in societies with high fertility. Noting that as many as one-third of regional population is in the ‘political volatile 15 to 24 age group, ‘the document which was partially declassified in 1986, warned that young people are ‘ready recruits for opposition causes’, including Islamic nationalism, ‘which currently offers the principal ideological haven for Muslim youth’.

According to political experts the growth in population is a distinct advantage in the modern world. Geoffrey McNicoll of the population council explained in a November 1985 conference on global population trends at Stanford University – California that, ‘population weight conveys power or voice in world affairs’.

Similarly, late Ray S. Cline former Deputy Director of Intelligence at CIA said in a book, ‘The Power of the Nations in the 1990s’, ‘that a large territory accompanied by a large population, almost automatically confers the status of power on a nation.’ But political analysis, he added, ‘generally gives little more importance to people than to territory, since populous countries of an adequate size can exploit economic resources, mobilize armies, and bring their influence on others’.

Pakistan has around 2.5 million Afghan refugees living for the past 30 years, created by the US war against the Soviets in 1979. Around 2 million Pakistanis are displaced or become homeless due to the so-called USA ’s war on terror within FATA and Swat. It is quite evident that US actions has caused Pakistan losses of around $35 – $40 billion in past 8 years and increasing. This displacement of the population is not meaningless but would have far reaching affects. No one knows which Taliban to deal with CIA’s Taliban, RAW’s Taliban, MOSSAD’s Taliban, Russian FSB’s Taliban or ISI’s Taliban? Surely responsibility lies on national security agencies to clear the mess both inside and outside?

I said in BBC News program with Bill Daley, White House Chief of Staff with President Obama: “US is like Hedgehog it hurts event it wants to be nice to you”.

Ps: I sent an written request to the press office at Pakistan High commission in London for the exact figures of US aid to Pakistan but no reply yet.

(Dr Shahid Qureshi is senior analyst with BBC and chief editor of The London Post. He writes on security, terrorism and foreign policy. He also appears as analyst on Al-Jazeera, Press TV, MBC, Kazak TV (Kazakhstan), LBC Radio London. He was also international election observer for Azerbaijan April 2018, Kazakhstan 2015 and 2016 and Pakistan 2002. He has written a famous book “War on Terror and Siege of Pakistan” published in 2009. At Government College Lahore he wrote his MA thesis on ‘Political Thought of Imam Khomeini’ and visited Tehran University. He is PhD in ‘Political Psychology’ and studied Law at a British University. He also speaks at Cambridge University. He is a visiting Professor at Hebe University in China.)

Views expressed are not of The London Post.

SHARE