Britain gives Pakistan £1bn to fight extremism

[vortexring 0]

Britain gives Pakistan £1bn to fight extremism
(Arif Ali/AFP/Getty)

Pakistan has been hit by rising Islamist extremism, which has led to several attacks against government and military targets
Zahid Hussain in Islamabad
Britain is doubling its aid to Pakistan to almost £500 million, reflecting concern over rising Islamic militancy in the lawless areas along the border with Afghanistan.

About a third of the money is expected to be spent in provinces abutting the porous western border, where the Taleban and other militant forces are increasingly challenging the authority of the central Government.

Douglas Alexander, the International Development Secretary, yesterday announced the £480 million package that will make Pakistan the second-largest recipient of British aid by 2011. More than £250 million will be earmarked for education, with plans to get five million Pakistani children into school and to boost training opportunities for young people.

Much of the extra money will go on improving schools in the border areas, in an attempt to tackle poor literacy, particularly among girls, which lags far behind Pakistan’s already low rate of about 50 per cent. There are hopes that such programmes will help the Pakistani Government to counter the influence of the radical madrassas that have become seedbeds of Islamic militancy.

“You can’t have any real successful efforts to counter radicalism without education,” said Robert Templer, director of the Asia programme at the International Crisis Group. “It’s desperately needed. If this area isn’t dealt with, it’s going to be a festering problem for decades to come.”

It is the first time that significant funding will be channelled towards Baluchistan and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, with a big increase also going to North West Frontier Province, areas that serve as a base for militants linked to the Taleban and al-Qaeda.

Thousands of Pakistani troops are currently engaged in fighting the insurgents responsible for cross-border attacks on Nato forces. Development work in these areas, considered unsafe for Western aid workers, is likely to pose a significant challenge. Hostility to outsiders has increased since US missile attacks on suspected militants inside Pakistan’s borders.

Most of the money will be channelled through central and local government, the Department for International Development said, while acknowledging that corruption would be a problem.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4262774.ece

Money well spent?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Money well spent?

Sounds like some of it may be very well spent:

“The UK assistance will continue to focus on health, including the battle against diseases like TB and polio -- and on good governance and earthquake affected areas’ reconstruction. There will now be an additional emphasis on assistance to the border areas as well as on education, with more than UK Pounds 250 million being made available to bring five million children into school and to increase training opportunities for young people.”

The US is considering a $7B non-military aid package:

· $1.5bn a year in civilian aid for at least five years
· $1bn "democracy dividend" as a reward for holding elections and forming a coalition government
· Counter-terrorism aid will be performance-based
· The Pakistani government will be consulted before any further air strikes against militants on Pakistani soil by US unmanned "Predator" aircraft
· More counter-terrorism assistance will be given to civilian law-enforcement and intelligence organisations

Since 2002, the US has offered ~$6B in military aid to Pakistan (some estimates are closer to $10B). The GAO has been very critical of the lack of oversight (most recent report from 24Jun08), which may be factually correct but may not reflect the ground truth of doing business with Pakistan. In geo-strategic terms, keeping Pakistan’s military allied is not necessarily a completely negative priority, conditional on having reason to believe they have the desire and ability to be effective at carrying the fight to al Qa'eda and Taliban strongholds in Pakistan … & securing those nuclear weapons. Additionally, some of that money has come back to the US in the form of purchase of conventional military equipment -- e.g., F-16s, air defense radars, and naval equipment -- that are more likely to be directed toward a conventional adversary [read: India] than against an unconventional adversary in land-locked NW Provinces [read: al Qa’eda]. Albeit some of the funding has been for transfer of equipment such as AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters that have operational relevance to counterterrorism.

How much military aid is the UK giving?

How much coordination is there between the military and non-military aid, where appropriate?
And how much coordination is there among international donors?

Pakistan is a state to which I would love to see Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) expanded with Russia as a contributing partner (rather than the US paying for it all/the vast majority).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[vortexring 0]

The countries corruption levels will prevent the money from being well spent. If Pakistan can afford Nukes they can afford to tackle terrorism.

edit: Yes of course the money could be very well spent but I somehow doubt it will.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The countries corruption levels will prevent the money from being well spent. If Pakistan can afford Nukes they can afford to tackle terrorism.

edit: Yes of course the money could be very well spent but I somehow doubt it will.

What are the foreign policy priorities and what level of corruption and/or grey economy is acceptable in support of those priorities? Especially if it keeps those nuclear weapons secure(-ish)?

How do states build non-corrupt governments?
Historically it's through strengthening civil institutions.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[shropshire 0]

Quote

The countries corruption levels will prevent the money from being well spent. If Pakistan can afford Nukes they can afford to tackle terrorism.

edit: Yes of course the money could be very well spent but I somehow doubt it will.

2nd'd.

Throwing good maoney after bad... and worse yet... it's MY Money

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Britain gives Pakistan £1bn to fight extremism

....In other news, the US has given $1billion to the Mariel Cartel to fight drug abuse.
Film at 11.

[vortexring 0]

I don't know what level of corruption UK foreign policy finds acceptable, other than it's far too high.

I do know that money simply shouldn't be literally thrown at a problem, because if you're aware a significant amount will be used by exactly the people you don't want using it, then it's squandered. Without strict administration of it's uses, what's is its purpose?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Britain gives Pakistan £1bn to fight extremism

....In other news, the US has given $1billion to the Mariel Cartel to fight drug abuse.
Film at 11.

I'll be in the pub by then. If you can explain to me how my DVD recorder can not only hook up to my telly, but also record all the channels I might pick, then I'll record it.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I do know that money simply shouldn't be literally thrown at a problem, because if you're aware a significant amount will be used by exactly the people you don't want using it, then it's squandered. Without strict administration of it's uses, what's is its purpose?

The other side of that coin is that administration can be so strict or complex that it becomes counter-productive. While it's undesirable for money to be spent for purposes other than those for which it was intended, it is equally undesirable to spend a dollar on administration in order to prevent 50¢ from being spent inappropriately.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[vortexring 0]

"The other side of that coin is that administration can be so strict or complex that it becomes counter-productive."

That's probably the crux of my issue. It's very unlikely to be administered properly. And as Shropshire said, it's our money. A great deal of money that could be used for better purposes.

Besides, if the cost of administration was therefore half a billion, knowing that exactly the other half and then been spent on it's exact purposes would make for a better situation all round.

Further to that, I've already alluded to the point that the Pakistan government could be and should be achieving far better results in its fight against terrorism.

Money is far from the solution.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'