« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
U.S. Aid to Musharraf is Largely Untraceable Cash Transfers
After Pervez Musharraf declared martial law this weekend, Condoleezza Rice vowed to review U.S. assistance to Pakistan, one of the largest foreign recipients of American aid. Musharraf, of course, has been a crucial American ally since the start of the Afghanistan war in 2001, and the U.S. has rewarded him ever since with over $10 billion in civilian and (mostly) military largesse. But, perhaps unsure whether Musharraf's days might in fact be numbered, Rice contended that the explosion of money to Islamabad over the past seven years was "not to Musharraf, but to a Pakistan you could argue was making significant strides on a number of fronts."
In fact, however, a considerable amount of the money the U.S. gives to Pakistan is administered not through U.S. agencies or joint U.S.-Pakistani programs. Instead, the U.S. gives Musharraf's government about $200 million annually and his military $100 million monthly in the form of direct cash transfers. Once that money leaves the U.S. Treasury, Musharraf can do with it whatever he wants. He needs only promise in a secret annual meeting that he'll use it to invest in the Pakistani people. And whatever happens as the result of Rice's review, few Pakistan watchers expect the cash transfers to end.
About $10.58 billion has gone to Pakistan since 9/11. That puts Pakistan in an elite category of U.S. foreign-aid recipients: only Israel, Egypt and Jordan get more or comparable U.S. funding. (That's only in the unclassified budget: the covert-operations budget surely includes millions more, according to knowledgeable observers.) While Israel and Egypt get more money, Pakistan and Jordan are the only countries that get U.S. cash from four major funding streams: development assistance, security assistance, "budget support" and Coalition Support Funds. Pakistan, however, gets most of its U.S. assistance from Coalition Support Funds and from budget support. And it's those two funding streams that have minimal accountability at best.
The "budget support" package is the lion's share of U.S. economic assistance to Pakistan -- and it's not spent in conjunction with any U.S. agency. "It's a cash transfer," says Lisa Curtis, a South Asia analyst at the Heritage Foundation who used to work on the South Asia desk at the State Department and for Sen. Richard Lugar (R-ID). "That goes directly to the Pakistani treasury." It totalled around $200 million each year until earlier this year, when Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) plucked $75 million of out of it and put it in an education fund for USAID to administer. In theory, budget support is supposed to free up the treasuries of the four countries that receive it for investing in their national infrastructure. But in practice, recipients can do with it whatever they like. "The notion is it gives them greater flexibility on how to use the money," explains Craig Cohen, vice president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The trade-off is accountability."
In Pakistan's case, the only oversight is an annual agreement, known as the Shared Objectives statement, whereby top State Department and Treasury Department officials receive from Musharraf deputies -- usually Prime Minister Shawkat Aziz -- an explanation of how Musharraf intends to spend the money. The agreement is reached entirely in secret. "A good question is what are the objectives we're basing this budget support on," Cohen says.
Accountability also suffers in the Coalition Support Funds. According to Rick Barton of CSIS, who spearheaded perhaps the most comprehensive report on the murky world of U.S.-Pakistan ties, Pakistan has gotten over $6 billion in Coalition Support Funds since 9/11, with disbursements rising to total about $100 million a month. This, too, is a direct cash transfer. "The Coalition Support funding is basically a sort of a handshake deal between militaries," Barton says. "We don’t have good sense where it goes. ... we don't ask a lot of questions, and we don't have a lot of record-keeping. "
Only about ten percent of the $10.58 billion since 9/11 has gone toward development aid and humanitarian assistance, according to the CSIS report -- even after Pakistan suffered a devastating earthquake in October 2005. "Close to 90 percent goes to the military-led government," Barton says. "Some of it is directly into the military, and the other pieces go into the Musharraf government."
In Pakistan, the military runs not just the government, but major sections of the economy as well. Joshua Hammer recently reported for The Atlantic that the Pakistani military owns large stakes in the country's "banks, cable-TV companies, insurance agencies, sugar refineries, private security firms, schools, airlines, cargo services, and textile factories." Mainlining largely untraceable money into the Pakistani treasury helps this system perpetuate itself -- even as widespread public discontent, from both moderates and radicals, boils over. It also sends the signal that the U.S. prefers to have relations with Pervez Musharraf rather than the Pakistani people.
"The whole orientation of policy and assistance provided since 9/11 is that he's the indispensable leader," says Cohen. "And the money runs through the central government and that leader."
Comments (56)
chisholm wrote on November 7, 2007 5:21 PM:AWESOME!
TheraP wrote on November 7, 2007 5:34 PM:How nice.... we're funding a crackdown on lawyers and judges!
For Shame!
Dave Bowman wrote on November 7, 2007 6:04 PM:Condi Rice is deserving of the accolades of the rest of the Bush admin--not the Medal of Honor, but the 'Worst Ever.'
Her best skill? Lying, er, prevaricating through her teeth.
mo2 wrote on November 7, 2007 6:05 PM:In order to circumvent whatever it is that prevents the MSM from finding news, I sent this article to NBC tv in three places.
The dollar is going down the drain and the stupid president is still spending money. It is so obvious that the super-rich are playing fast-and-easy with our tax money. Because this is detrimental to US security, can we please IMPEACH Bush and Cheney on the grounds of treason? Over and over their policies have hurt this country. At what point do we stop pretending that they aren't doing it on purpose? They are doing it on purpose and it is treason.
chisholm wrote on November 7, 2007 6:16 PM:We're really going to need a Truth & Reconciliation Commission to get over this administration. It's the worst of everything -- incompetent, vindictive, aggressive, irresponsible, ignorant, corrupt. Everything they've touched has turned into a shit sandwich. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, what's so frustrating is that the Congressional Democrats are going to yawn at a story like this. "We're interested in getting things done, not stopping Bush." There's the rub--you never hear the appropriate outrage from them, let alone the appropriate (re)actions.
moseman23 wrote on November 7, 2007 6:23 PM:Bush Tells Musharraf to Hold Elections
E-MAIL
PRINT
SAVE
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 7, 2007
Filed at 5:55 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush told Pakistan's president on Wednesday that he must hold parliamentary elections and step down as army leader.
''You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time,'' Bush said, describing a telephone call with Gen. Pervez Musharraf. ''I had a very frank discussion with him.''
parrot wrote on November 7, 2007 6:25 PM:The dollar was dishonored the minute GWB stepped into office as President of the United States. It then subsequently became devalued.
CW wrote on November 7, 2007 6:53 PM:Okay, so welfare $$$ for our own citizens is BAD, but welfare $$$ for a military dictator is GOOD!
So we are bankrupting our nation, robbing our citizens, allowing our infrastructure to fall apart, in order to enrich a military dictatorship that will not make our own nation any safer. There is something horribly wrong with this picture.
Impeachment Now, for Bush - Cheney and the rest of the cabal.
Bobby Seals wrote on November 7, 2007 7:09 PM:He's probably splitting half of it with Osama bin Laden, LOL.......
Singularity wrote on November 7, 2007 7:13 PM:I am going to bring this up every time some right-wing tool complains about SCHIP.
bob wrote on November 7, 2007 7:21 PM:I wonder how much this impacts our foreign aid numbers. Everyone thinks we give a lot, when a lot of the meager amount we do give is for military aid for Egypt, Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Pakistan.
Henk wrote on November 7, 2007 7:51 PM:...another day another "unnoticed" scandal. Seriously, every day or two we hear another outragious incident/policy/whatever. Scadalous behavior that would have ruined any other admin, don't even slow these assholes down. If we had a "real" media in the country Bush and company would locked up...
hmbnancy wrote on November 7, 2007 7:55 PM:Sanctions, until the military dictatorship restores democracy and Musharaff holds elections, stops rounding up the opposition, and releases his control of the press.
No more money- $100million a month. That's ridiculous.
Stop the money and the dictator falls.
W Action wrote on November 7, 2007 8:13 PM:I'd guess the cash largely ends up in Musharraf's private accounts in Dubai as retirement security for when things go ka-phlooey in Pakistan. I just hope nuclear weapons won't be involved in the meltdown.
r€nato wrote on November 7, 2007 8:16 PM:"He's probably splitting half of it with Osama bin Laden, LOL......."
there's so much truth in that. Bush and Bush-arraf both benefit from OBL still shuffling about on this mortal coil. Why would they ever want to find him and kill the golden goose?
r€nato wrote on November 7, 2007 8:20 PM:sadly, the dictator Musharraf is preferable to the real extremists who could take charge of Pakistan. It's a choice between the utterly corrupt, authoritarian semi-secular ruling class, and the Islamic crazies. With nukes for whoever wins the power struggle!
It's worth remembering that it's often a choice between bad and worse, when it comes to choosing which rulers to support in countries like this. Just take a look at Iraq. We didn't like Saddam... look what we got instead when we bumped him off! Anarchy!
lambert strether wrote on November 7, 2007 8:26 PM:I wonder what percentage of the $100 million in untraceable cash is going back to the administration as a kick back.
And to whom.
And what the administration's been doing with the resulting slush fund.
I hate to be cynical, but unfortunately, with these guys, I've never been cynical enough.
Paranoid yet? wrote on November 7, 2007 8:32 PM:Thank you, lambert strether! My very thought!
Could it be paying for the surveillance of everything and everyone? Or just paying for trust funds for the twins?
chisholm wrote on November 7, 2007 8:43 PM:Lambert: Totally. The cynicism you're talking about is the radicalizing affect of this administration. I used to laugh at the tinfoil hatters but man, every day--literally, every fucking day--there is a new outrage that just blows. my. freaking. mind. And now I suspect the worst, all the time, about everything. This 100 million a month funneled directly into the Pakistani military's account, never to be heard from again--unbelievable. But you know what? I bet it's chicken feed compared to what's going on in the black hole that is the DOD. I seriously wonder if we as a nation have the stomach to know. Not that we ever will, mind you ... but every single sign tells me it's bad. Really, unbelievably, new-kind-of bad bad. And I am really beginning to wonder if we can get over it or if the nation has turned a dreadful corner.
W Action wrote on November 7, 2007 8:54 PM:I'm listening to "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" on disk this week. I'd recommend it, but it's so relentlessly depressing that it's hard to keep at it. From what it relates about malfeasance and bad judgment in Iraq, you just can't be cynical enough about how the Bush government has sold America out to profiteers both foreign and domestic. My guess is that the intelligence "black budget" contains a lot more of this kind of untraceable "assistance" to Musharraf. He doesn't seem like the kind of dictator who would settle for only $100M a month.
Think About It wrote on November 7, 2007 9:18 PM:They've gutted all the domestic agencies. Where is that money going? They have so many ways to get so much money and no qualms about how and what they spend it on!
Makes you sick to your stomach, as someone said on one of these threads!
dqueue wrote on November 7, 2007 9:28 PM:Why is it in untraceable cash transfers? Drug money. Money laundering.
Anonymous wrote on November 7, 2007 9:43 PM:Curiouser and curiouser as we explore deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole.
Garuda wrote on November 7, 2007 10:03 PM:Cash transfer = drug money. Always has, always will. Heroin coming out of Afghanistan, no doubt.
V wrote on November 7, 2007 10:09 PM:You won't be reading or hearing about this from our corporate press. Thanks for enlightening me Spencer.
mountain biker wrote on November 7, 2007 10:31 PM:Why doesn't W go all out in support of the military dictatorship in Pakistan. We have always preferred stable dictatorships to ever changing democracies. Remember Hamas?
Just be straight with the American people. Tell us the truth that it is between our security and Pakistani freedom. I think Americans will go overwhelmingly for our security. Afterall, we have given up most of our human rights for security already. All we have left to love is fear.
enough wrote on November 7, 2007 10:33 PM:We bribe some (cash only so American taxpayers can't find out who, where, or how much) we disappear and torture some (unnamed, often innocent), we pay some to protect the powerful and kill anyone who gets in the way (no oversight on expense or death). This is my country? Not.
And we can't ask questions? And we can't follow our own constitution to get rid of this plague?
Pelosi and Hoyer and Emanuel and Feinstein and Schumer and Specter and Boehner and Mitch McConnell should be waterboarded. Keep playing your games while America rots from within.
We won't forget. We either stop this through impeachment or we let our country die.
jeffgee wrote on November 7, 2007 11:25 PM:No wonder Pervez is called "Busharraf".
jeffgee wrote on November 7, 2007 11:43 PM:No accountability. A dictatorship'd be easier. As long as I'm the dictator.
But they better vote soon, and he'd better take off the uniform, says the stern King George to his client in Pakistan.
Good luck with that.
No more for SCHIP, though. It might make kids dependent on the American government.
Deja Vu wrote on November 7, 2007 11:47 PM:Iran-Contra all over again. Watergate all over again. Same story. Different methods.
Michael Lafferty wrote on November 8, 2007 12:04 AM:Could I be mistaken, that in any other line of work, cash transfers—not subject to accounting controls and audits—are generally referred to as (shudder) bribes? And, uh, proscribed by US and international law?
Is that what we're doing here? Buying a relationship with a corrupt military and propping up a dictator though bribery, all in the name of democracy and the rule of law?
Hmm. I thought so.
dexxjones wrote on November 8, 2007 12:29 AM:drugs and/or children. thats my vote for where the cash is going.
anon wrote on November 8, 2007 1:12 AM:This is a bit OT but remember a while back, during the last India-Pakistan crisis, the administration said it had a 24/7 plan to secure the Pakistani nukes in case of political meltdown? IIRC, although the administration didn't say so directly, there were articles about Marines stationed on various support boats and certain bases on high alert, etc. Well, ahem, now we have a another political crisis in Pakistan and it's pretty close to a meltdown. So, are the Marines still there? Does the administration have active plans to secure the nukes in, say, a few hours or so? Or, are the plans just to, say, nuke the nukes and the whole plan is just a couple of stealth bombers fueled up at Diego Garcia? I really don't want to hear "Who would have predicted that the Paki nukes would end up distributed around the Middle East?"
Manish wrote on November 8, 2007 1:21 AM:The Pakistan Coup Calculator shows you exactly how much of your taxes has gone to funding the strongman of Pakistan, and how many tanks your city has bought him:
http://www.ultrabrown.com/coup
puppydog wrote on November 8, 2007 2:56 AM:to paraphrase FDR....he may be an sob, but he is our sob. (obviously bought and paid for) is Musharraf the best of the worst? thanks to TPM. we sure won't get this info from MSM
aeo wrote on November 8, 2007 8:47 AM:
Pakistan Military fools international community wrote on November 8, 2007 8:50 AM:We also have to ask what the alternative is here. Implicit in many comments is that Musharraf, with US assistance, is standing in the way of a stable democracy. However, if the alternative is civil war or widespread violence and economic collapse, then the policy implication become more complicated.
Musharraf along with pak military have turned it into an art on how to fool the international Community into giving billions and Keeping him and the military in power. All complete with well choreographed acts like assassination attempts, blasts, raids into waziristan, nukes in danger, emergency, Chinese navy bases in Gwadar Port, Osama sacks islamabad etc.. etc.. When the fact remains Taliban till today is a wholly owned subsidiary of pakistan ISI with the objective to control Afghanistan and be the reason for west to pay billions of $$ in rent/aid to Pakistan Army which includes Talibans salary supplemented by drug trade.
BushYouth wrote on November 8, 2007 8:53 AM:"Bush Tells Musharraf to Hold Elections"
and to take off his clothes!
WTF?
b wrote on November 8, 2007 10:39 AM:I find the story quite misleading.
Of the $10 billion or so Musharraf did get many billions were spend to buy weapons form the U.S.
Pakistan bought 24 F16 fighters which alone, all included, will cost above $2 billion. It also ordered Harpoon and Sidewinder missiles and Howitzers.
That money is certainly not "untraceable".
Kurt wrote on November 8, 2007 11:28 AM:b:
Presumably Pakistan has a military budget that would account for at least some of those purchases, with or without the "untraceable" money from us. If the money was only being used to purchase American weapons, why not just buy the weapons ourselves and tranfer the WEAPONS, rather than the money, to Pakistan?
For serious tinfoil hat territory on drugs, money, BushCo., oil and terror, try Michael Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon: American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil
John Moyers wrote on November 8, 2007 12:16 PM:Did you hear this morning (Thursday) that Condi Rice has promised "a thorough review" of all US aid to Pakistan?
Just how is that done when so much of the money flowed through untraceable cash transfers?
What will Condi's quote be next week on the subject? 'Um, we've reviewed the transfers and confirm that they were all, indeed, cash and that it all was transferred. No smoke, no fire here.'
ARG in Chicago wrote on November 8, 2007 12:55 PM:Last I heard, Lugar was still a Senator from Indiana. (That's IN, not ID.)
-- ARG
mo2 wrote on November 8, 2007 1:01 PM:I found some money. Bush funding a port in Pakistan being built through which nuclear weapons will flow.
http://www.app.com.pk/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20436&Itemid=2
...construction of US one billion dollar Deep Sea Container Terminal at Karachi would turn the country into a major transshipment hub for the regional countries, further bolstering Pakistan’s trade and commerce.Addressing after the signing ceremony between the Karachi Port Trust and the Hong Kong based Hutchison Port Holdings limited (HPH).
Then wiki says:
Bahamas Port
In March 2006, the Bush Administration was hiring Hutchison Whampoa Limited to help detect nuclear materials inside cargo passing through the Bahamas in a no-bid contract. The CIA had no security concerns about Hutchison's port operations, and Larry M. Wortzel, head of a U.S. government commission that studies China security and economic issues, said Hutchison operates independently from Beijing, and he described Li as "a very legitimate international businessman.
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 1:27 PM:Larry M. Wortzelis Vice-President for Foreign Policy and Defense Studies for the Heritage Foundation and a PNAC signer.
Yes, I'd wager that money is being filtered back to the GOP as well as to Cheney and the Bush Crime Family.
subcommander smith wrote on November 8, 2007 7:27 PM:This really is a story that needs to be investigated further. What kind of slush funds (think Iran-Contra as noted above) exist out of an arrangement like this. This really is anti-democratic to the core.
kikz wrote on November 9, 2007 6:14 AM:so nauseatingly typical....
Raymeem wrote on November 12, 2007 2:59 AM:The Americans including Condi and her boss are so god damned naive & stupid that it is not funny anymore!
Dave Nofmeister wrote on November 13, 2007 10:02 AM:The democratic congress given a majority could not stop Bush & co pushing this country to almost bankruptcy with this phony war on terror with zero results while enriching his cronies. He is throwing about 70 million every day in Iraq with nothing to show for America. Musharraf knows Americans are moron who have no control on their destiny he is really taken them for a ride.
This article strongly hints at the idea that the money has already been received and stolen by Musharraf. It strongly hints that an audit was done, and money is missing, which neither could be confirmed.
This article would be better titled "Lack of accounting practices by US gives Musarraf ability to steal billions". Of course, that would be too boring of a title for readers.
ES355GIBSON wrote on November 25, 2007 6:57 PM:I wonder what will happen if Musarraf is not elected or overthrown?
Who will the CIA pick next to be the puppet?
Another UnoCal executive?
I cannot believe Pakistan is not listed as a terrorist state.
The worst of the worst which is fact based.
I think we will see some serious action over the next 3 months with this country.
This will halt the blood ooops I mean oil pipeline from developing...
Neo wrote on December 13, 2007 6:48 PM:formazione squadra calcio
Jane wrote on December 13, 2007 8:31 PM:testi canzoni take that
last minute atene
the color purple play
case legno vendita
business home start
pine bluff used car
soluzione giochi pc
casino slot super
b12 effects side vitamin
albergo emilia romagna
Jane wrote on December 13, 2007 8:31 PM:concorde de la place suisse
calendario donna motore
convertitore audio gratis
recupero hard disk
sfondi valentino rossi
barbie da collezione
film making school
agenzia matrimoniale firenze
al cinema dicembre 2005
albergo emilia romagna
Halo wrote on December 13, 2007 11:10 PM:concorde de la place suisse
calendario donna motore
convertitore audio gratis
recupero hard disk
sfondi valentino rossi
barbie da collezione
film making school
agenzia matrimoniale firenze
al cinema dicembre 2005
business law article
Kir wrote on December 14, 2007 11:39 AM:vera wang bridal gown
luxury hotel venice lido
love symbol tattoo
bouquet dendrobium orchid
cartolina elettroniche amore
memoria di adriano
internet marketing for online business
copertina dvd scaricabili
albergo lacco ameno
prenotazioni lido di jesolo
Aron wrote on December 14, 2007 10:28 PM:neffa mondo nuovo
fiera dell elettronica
team usa baseball
biografia de benito juarez
federal business loan
calabria casa vacanza
free business card template
filmato di sesso gratis
software creazione stereogramma
nome attrice film stigmate
Neo wrote on December 15, 2007 2:43 AM:baby angel tattoo
appartamento in affitto brescia
acquistare libro online
costruzione utensile industria meccanica
de gratis musica programas
business from home work job opportunity
loreal feria hair color
elenco hotel parigi
biglietto augurio nascita
vendita cartuccia stampante
amicizia incontri anima gemella
business data communication
norton anti virus live update
con gratis musica postales
colonna sonore mp3
albergo economici siena
right hair color for you
cavalieri di malta
software creazione frattali