"In an age of nuclear proliferation and mass refugee flows caused by terrorism, there must be a new principle of zero-tolerance for state-sponsored terrorism. This includes what I would call “mediate state-sponsored terrorism” designed for plausible deniability by being once- or twice-removed from terrorist violence. Democratic and peaceful states must demonstrate to terrorists and their state sponsors: there will be no more business as usual."
Why is the U.S. Congress even considering any more financial aid to Pakistan, much less tripling it?
By Anders Corr
F26 February 2017
China and Russia will oppose sanctions, but should understand that standing in the way could make them complicit in terrorism.
The biggest democratic economies should not only support targeted sanctions to protect Afghanistan and India, but lead in pushing for their adoption. India and Afghanistan will not have the power at the U.N. to get the votes necessary to impose international sanctions. Nor will their market power allow them to impose unilateral sanctions. However, the top democratic importers from Pakistan will be particularly persuasive, and should lend sanctions their full logistic and diplomatic support at the United Nations. Democratic importers from Pakistan, in order of magnitude, are the United States, Germany, the U.K., Afghanistan, France, Spain, and Italy. As importers, these countries will have the best chance for influence on Pakistani businesses, which will in turn have the greatest influence on Pakistan’s military and intelligence services.
Pakistan-supported terrorism against civilians in Afghanistan puts into question why the U.S. plans to triple its $300 million of foreign aid to Pakistan in 2016 (which was not disbursed because Pakistan failed to act against the Haqqani terrorists), to $900 million in 2017 ($450 million of which is contingent on actions against the Haqqani).