US anti-terror aid to Pak funds corruption in military: Report
The US 'thank you' to Pakistan in aid to fight terror during 2002-08 cost American tax payers 2.37 billion dollars but it has "funded" large-scale corruption in Pakistan's military and security services, according to a report.Updated: Aug 09, 2009, 20:34 IST
The US 'thank you' to Pakistan in aid to fight terror during 2002-08 cost American tax payers 2.37 billion dollars but it has "funded" large-scale corruption in Pakistan's military and security services, according to a report.
The report by Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs of the prestigious Harvard University said there has been widespread agreement in this country that the US aid has not been spent effectively in Pakistan over the past decade.
Pakistan is one of only four countries to receive direct cash transfers. Between 2002 and 2008, this "thank you" to Pakistan for help in fighting terrorism cost the US taxpayer 2,374,000,000 USD , it said. By its nature, these cash transfers became Pakistani sovereign funds, precluding US oversight.
The report said the Pakistani military did not use most of the funds for the agreed objective of fighting terror. Pakistan bought much conventional military equipment.
Examples include F-16s, aircraft-mounted armaments, anti-ship and anti-missile defense systems, and an air defence radar system costing $200 million, despite the fact that the terrorists in the FATA have no air attack capability.
Over half of the total funds 54.9 per cent were spent on fighter aircraft and weapons, over a quarter 26.62 per cent on support and other aircraft, and 10 per cent on advanced weapons systems, the report said.
There is also clear evidence of corruption within the Pakistani army, the report said. The US provided $1.5 million to reimburse Pakistan for damage to Navy vehicles which had not been used in combat, $15 million for the Pakistani army to build bunkers for which there is no evidence that they exist, and about $30 million for Pakistani road building for which there is no such evidence either.