Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Pakistan: U.S. Development Aid v. Military Intervention

Aid to Pakistan is under threat from both Congress and the public, but it would be smarter to reform the U.S. package than end it.

Inter Press Service

Amid a spate of calls by U.S. lawmakers to slash aid to Pakistan in the aftermath of Osama bin Laden's death, an influential think tank is calling for greater patience, precision, transparency and humility in implementing Washington's 1.5-billion-dollar-a-year development aid programme.

"Mend it; don't end it," said Molly Kinder, the project director of a blue-ribbon study group convened last year by the Center for Global Development (CGD) which released the 40-page report at its headquarters here Wednesday.

The report, "Beyond Bullets and Bombs: Fixing the U.S. Approach to Development in Pakistan," nonetheless calls for major changes in Washington's approach to development assistance to the South Asian country, beginning with its separation from Washington's development efforts in neighbouring Afghanistan and from its military and security assistance programme in Pakistan itself.

In addition, it urges that the administration of President Barack Obama appoint one person to be in charge of the U.S. aid programme in Pakistan; set up a website with regularly updated information about aid disbursements; hire more senior-level Pakistan staff to administer the aid and engage more with local civil society leaders to help design it; and resist pressure to spend the money too quickly.

The report also urged the administration and Congress to approve new legislation that would spur private investment and enterprise in Pakistan by, among other measures, extending duty-free access to U.S. markets for all Pakistani exports, including textiles, and offering credit and new forms of risk insurance for both foreign and domestic companies that want to invest there.

"While effective aid is essential for strengthening public sector institutions in Pakistan, a strong private sector will play a far greater role in Pakistan's transition toward prosperity and stability," according to the study group, which was chaired by CGD President Nancy Birdsall and included nearly two dozen development and South Asia experts.

The report was released amid continuing controversy over U.S. policy towards Islamabad in the wake of the May 2 killing by U.S. Navy Seals of Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a hill town not far from Islamabad that is also home to Pakistan's premier military academy.

The fact that he had apparently been living there for as long as six years raised strong suspicions here that Pakistan's powerful military intelligence, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) unit, must have known of his presence, although both Defence Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who visited Islamabad earlier this week, have insisted that Washington has no concrete evidence of high-level Pakistani complicity.

Despite those denials, many lawmakers have called for the administration to sharply cut or even eliminate Washington's 3.2- billion-dollar-a-year aid package.

"Right now, there's a pushback against assistance (in Congress), some against the development (assistance), some against military (aid)," noted Michael Phelan, a top staffer for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, Thursday.

Of the total bilateral aid package, 1.5 billion dollars has been earmarked for non-military assistance since 2009 when Congress passed the Enhanced Partnership for Pakistan Act, better known as the Kerry- Lugar-Berman Act after its main Congressional sponsors. It tripled non-military aid for Islamabad.

The bill, which provides 7.5 billion dollars in development and economic assistance over five years, was designed to rebalance the U.S. bilateral aid programme, which, since the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, had gone almost exclusively to Pakistan's army; to bolster support for the new civilian government headed by President Asif Ali Zardari; and to reassure the Pakistani public that Washington was committed to supporting the country's development over the long term and not just because it needed Islamabad's cooperation to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"Two years later, the U.S. development program is not yet on course," according to the new report, which noted a number of flaws in the programme's implementation, beginning with the unrealistically high expectations it created both here and in Pakistan when it was approved.

Indeed, seen in perspective, the 1.5 billion dollars comes to less than one percent of Pakistan's gross domestic product and only about five percent of Islamabad's federal budget. The U.S. military spends that amount in just five-and-half-days in Afghanistan, according to the report.

Moreover, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was not ready to manage such a large aid programme, with the result that less than 700 million dollars was disbursed under the programme in 2010, the first year it took effect.

Moreover, to the degree that aid has been seen as part of an integrated "Af-Pak strategy", its effectiveness in promoting development in Pakistan has been seriously undermined, according to the report.

Given the much heavier focus by the administration on security issues in Afghanistan and increasingly in Pakistan, as well, long-term development assistance in Pakistan has gotten relatively short shrift, even under the Partnership Act, which lists 11 different objectives of U.S. policy, including such aims as countering extremism and improving the standing of the United States among Pakistanis.

As a result, "aid decisions are politicized and subject to short-term pressures," and lines of authority are often muddled as different bureaucracies compete for attention and resources.

Adding to these problems is the lack of transparency with which the aid programme has been carried out, an issue which Kerry himself warned about in a May 10 letter. The lack of clear information, he wrote, "…creates confusion and unnecessary speculation in Pakistan and limits the potential of the policy community and allies at home."

Besides addressing these problems, Washington should be both more patient and selective in its approach to long-term aid in Pakistan, according to the report.

"Indeed, spending quickly without lasting impact would only confirm Pakistanis' suspicions that the United States is not a credible long- term partner, suspicions that are based on the history of American assistance to Pakistan," noted the report, stressing its recommendation that the Partnership Act aid "not be disbursed immediately", lest it be wasted or reduce the urgency of key policy reforms, such as in Pakistan's energy sector.

The report suggests a possible portfolio of long-term investments that take advantage of USAID's strengths and avoid the worst risks of doing harm.

Such initiatives include providing support for one or two major infrastructure projects, such as investing the Diamer-Basha hydropower project; co-financing innovations in education with the World Bank and the British aid agency (DfID); making health or agriculture a signature priority; and providing small-scale assistance to institutions and civil society groups that promote democratic reforms.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to Right Web (https://rightweb.irc-online.org).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share