PCF and PCCF- Similar but Different October 12, 2009Posted by Rebecca Williams in Analysis.
Tags: Pakistan, Security Assistance, security force assistance
Over the last year instability and violence have been increasing along Pakistan’s western border, which is a source of instability both in Pakistan and in neighboring Afghanistan. The Pakistani military has, in recent months, been increasingly engaged in counter-insurgency operations in these regions. Early in 2009, the administration urged the Congress to provide new assistance to the Pakistani military as part of the effort to encourage even greater engagement against these adversaries. Congress responded by establishing two new accounts totaling $1.1 billion, to provide such assistance between FY 2009 and FY 2010: the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF) at DOD, with $400 million in FY 2009-10 funding; and the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF), at State, with $700 million in FY 2010-11 funding.
The two funds overlap and are intended for the same purpose. The difference between the two reflects a strong desire on the part of the Congress to shift responsibility for such security assistance from DOD to State.
Congress established the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF) at DOD in the FY 2009 supplemental and stipulated that the funds remained available through FY 2010. Decisions are made for these funds by the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State. In other words, DOD -not State- initiates a program decision; these are DOD’s funds. DOD is responsible for implementation, including identifying and coordinating the requirements needed by the Pakistani forces, and synchronizing the acquisition and production of equipment with its delivery to the Pakistani forces. While State concurrence is required, the review may not necessarily pass through all relevant State bureaus.
Congress approved this funding, given the near-term needs of the Pakistani security forces, but was concerned about the long-term expansion of DOD responsibilities for security assistance. As a result, it created a second account in the same supplemental appropriations bill for the PCCF, at State, which would assume responsibility for this support starting in FY 2010 and running through FY 2011.
The PCCF funds became available on September 30, 2009 and remain available through FY 2011. In this case, the account is part of the International Affairs (Function 150) budget, and decisions are the responsibility of the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. As is the case with other traditional security assistance programs (such as Foreign Military Financing), State would control the funds, and manages the account, working in close coordination with DOD, as the primary implementing agency. As stipulated in the legislation, State is to provide detailed spending plans and transfer proposals to Congress. The provision provides the Secretary of State authority to transfer to any federal agency or entity some or all of these funds to carry out the purposes set forth in the provision. It is also State’s responsibility to consult closely with DOD on the uses of the PCCF, ensure that the funds are obligated and expended in a timely manner, and provide appropriate oversight.
It is Congressional intent that the PCCF remain under the authority of State and presumably be funded through the International Affairs budget in the future. Congress directed the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State to jointly develop a plan to transition the PCF from Defense to State by FY 2010, a process which is to be complete by FY 2011. Joint public statements from both secretaries indicate that for FY 2010 the PCCF will likely function as a pass-through, simply transferring resources from State to Defense.
The PCCF account at State would contain this new and unique feature: the requirement that the Secretary of Defense concur in its program decisions. According to the legislation, the State PCCF account would apply to five provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act: International Narcotics Control, Military Assistance, International Military Education Training, Peacekeeping Operations and Antiterrorism Assistance. (Both accounts also contain “notwithstanding” language, which means other restrictions of the provision of foreign assistance in the FAA do not apply.) This could reflect a growing trend toward closer coordination between the two departments with respect to security and related foreign assistance programs.