US foreign aid serves as a powerful tool to entice developing countries to do its bidding. Pakistan has been a significant recipient of American military and development aid over the years, especially in times of strategic need. But we have also experienced the withdrawal symptoms of US assistance being abruptly halted when our decision-makers dared to defy Washington.
Consider, for instance, its generosity towards Pakistan during the proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, when Pakistan’s support to the US proved invaluable. After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, however, Pakistan was no longer a vital ally, so it did not pain Washington much to slap sanctions when Pakistan decided to go nuclear in reaction to developments in India.
The usefulness of Pakistan did not re-emerge until the US decision to invade Afghanistan in the post-9/11 context. This time around, however, circumstances have been much more complex. Although the US administration had no problems allying itself to another military government, it has since been struggling hard to make Pakistan help it effectively win the ‘fight against terrorism’.
The nuclear proliferation controversy, the subsequent political chaos, the increasing violence, the resentment over US drone strokes and the deteriorating economic conditions across Pakistan have hardly made things easy — and neither did the Raymond Davis incident or the May 2 raid in Abbottabad. Consequently, US lawmakers decided to hold off a third of $2 billion in security aid in a show of displeasure over lingering bilateral irritants, including the more immediate Pakistani decision to cut back permission to accept military trainers and place limits on visas for other US personnel.
Washington tried to assure Islamabad that the pause in military aid would not affect its economic support to the country. But local analysts were quick to point out that Pakistan’s economy will be hit if the US does not reimburse funds already spent on several operations on the Afghan border. Not releasing these payments, which were meant to go to the general treasury, would therefore further strain the country’s finances.
(Read: Suspension of US military assistance)
Moreover, the Republicans in the Congress are now pushing for a bill aiming to undercut the very spirit of the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009. The Democrats seem reluctant to place more restrictions on military and development aid to Pakistan. They rightly fear that disrupting aid to Pakistan would hinder the fight against terrorism and complicate the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. What is instead needed is for both the US and our own decision-makers to ensure effective use of the incoming aid, particularly the funds allocated for development purposes.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 27th, 2011.
COMMENTS (10)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
IMF has warned US on debt crisis amounting to trillions of dollars. Keeping in view of the financial crisis which US is facing presently, the aid will dry up automatically and wishes of majority of Pakistanis is going to be fulfilled shortly.
@hariharmani "It is only nation which allows you own your house the day you land in JFK airport". Obviously because JFK airport is in the USA. Don't tell me you expect other countries to let you own a house within their territories, when you land at JFK. I think in the UK you are allowed to own a house the moment you land at one of their air or seaports and even if you are a tourist.
---Will the carrot of US aid be withdrawn?
---Yes, after 2014.
---Will the stick of sanctions be shown?
---Yes, after 2014.
@P N Eswaran:
Absolutely nothing.
What is new in this article??
Mr Syed Ali,I expected better from a schloar than condensending column.Every one knows nations have relationship on mutual respect,mutual interset,and lay man's term'what is in it for me'?In other wards no free lunch.Usa gives aids to most developing countries in the world,it keeps its flag in most developing countries also,in lay man's term,American military bases.It does it for 'strategic' out post.It is very expensive,but it has made since the second world,the most powerful nation in the history,something in the magnitude of "Roman empire'when the fastest mode of travel was horse,yet maintained garrison in far off England to West and Jerusulum to the East',all on horses which need to rest unlike planes and automobiles.Lot of ordinary people do not understand the reach and power of this country has which achieved in 56 years.In the first world war ,we were minor players ,it not even 95 years ago,Indians and Chinese like to brag about 10,000 year old civilization,I'm saying this for to put in percepective only.The less I talk about its powerful navy,and Strategic .Air command,the better.All this done by guys who join military when they are 18 year old,the sense of service to the nation,many are so young they do not even understand the grand design and purpose.It is very generous,trusting nation,don't mistake me it has its warts and all.It is only nation which allows you own your house the day you land in JFK airport and if legal residence,citizenship in 5 year s,you can slogs till the cow comes home ksa(SOUDI ARABIA) and other country,you are guest worker' with no right,but there is catch,you can not take 'uncle sams ' largeness and stab her in the back,I'm not going to be unkind and say unchartable words,to many of our "young tressures have been lost for ever in the desert and wilderness of Pakistan/Afganistan, for American Tax payer to keep aid flowing if the receiver does not even in good faith does what it was agreed,if you say you do not want American aid,there is no instance where USa has forced its largeness on any nation or ally.It expect,and believes in contract and binding agreement,if you are less than honest or disgenauneous then 'all .is fair in war and love' This is what seem to have happened in US-Pak relation,breech of trust,in deplomatically saying 'Trust deficiency. Americans do not bad mouth there generous nation,yes dissent ,is not unpatriotic,but stabbing in the back is, left to low life.When we swear alligence,we mean it from the bottom of our heart,any one who doubts our resolve,does it on his/her own risk,one more thing 'the demise of USA is greatly exaggerated,some people fondly wish,but sorry to disappoint you for atleast 50 years.
"US foreign aid serves as a powerful tool to entice developing countries to do its bidding" - please spare me the A-Level English lesson
Pakistan is perfectly capable of standing on its own feet. But it is the USA that should do this and that. Even the aid that is given, it should ensure better use of it. Because Pakistanis can't trust Pakistanis! But down with USA!
I think it was just the same stick ... painted as carrot ... There are no Free Lunch as they say ....
I can certainly support very strongly your last sentence.