×

Our award-winning reporting has moved

Context provides news and analysis on three of the world’s most critical issues:

climate change, the impact of technology on society, and inclusive economies.

Who would suffer most from aid cuts to Pakistan?

by megan-rowling | @meganrowling | Thomson Reuters Foundation
Thursday, 5 May 2011 18:40 GMT

* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.

Many US lawmakers are asking whether Islamabad has clamped down enough on terrorism to deserve billions of dollars in aid

By Megan Rowling

Since Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. special forces in northern Pakistan on Monday, a heated debate has emerged over whether Islamabad has clamped down hard enough on terrorism to deserve the billions of dollars in foreign assistance it's received in recent years.

Some U.S. lawmakers argue Washington should cut all or part of its military, economic and development aid to Pakistan, angered by the discovery the al Qaeda leader was living near a military academy in a town just 50 km (31 miles) northeast of the capital. That has fuelled suspicions at home and abroad that Pakistan's government must have been aware of bin Laden's whereabouts but didn't act on the information.

Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, a Californian Democrat, hinted it may be time to review how Washington provides aid to Pakistan. "Our government is in fiscal distress," she was quoted as saying in a Huffington Post article. "To make contributions to a country that isn't going to be fully supportive is a problem for many."

They include Texas Congressman Ted Poe, who is introducing legislation that will prohibit foreign aid from being sent to Pakistan "until it can demonstrate that it had no knowledge of Osama Bin Laden's whereabouts", the Times of India reported.

Analysts with the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations told journalists on Wednesday the ball lies in Pakistan's court, with the fate of the U.S. aid programme hinging on whether the Pakistan military comes up with a constructive response to "reasonable and legitimate frustrations" on Capitol Hill.

BETTER CONTROLS NEEDED

The knee-jerk reaction to the puzzling circumstances surrounding bin Laden's death may be to question what Washington has to show for the more than $18 billion in aid it has provided to Pakistan since 2002, two-thirds of it security-related. But other politicians and aid experts urge a more cautious approach.

Farzana Shaikh, a fellow in the Asia programme at London-based think tank Chatham House, told AlertNet a suspension or significant reduction in aid could have "quite catastrophic consequences" for Pakistan's impoverished and disaster-hit people.

"The military and elected leaders are distinct from the population," she said. "To abandon 180 million people is not an option, when the economy is in dire straits."

And it seems unlikely that donors would cut off humanitarian help for the nearly 20 million Pakistanis affected by the massive floods that rolled from the north to the south of the country last year, leaving hundreds of thousands homeless.

But Shaikh said corruption is a major problem, adding that now is the time for a fresh debate about how aid is managed to "ensure it actually reaches those who most need it", rather than being diverted for defence or into politicians' pockets.

SHOW US THE MONEY

U.S. legislation passed in 2009 boosted civilian aid to Pakistan - authorising up to $1.5 billion a year for development, economic and democratic assistance from fiscal 2010 to 2014. But the New York Times reported on Sunday that Washington's fears of Pakistani graft and incompetence have slowed disbursal of this funding, with only $179.5 million of the first year's tranche having been shelled out by December.

Last month, Pakistan's finance minister said the United States had not delivered on the 2009 aid package, describing it as "largely a myth that Pakistan is a beneficiary of tens of billions of dollars".

A teacher in the Swat Valley, where the army fought the Taliban two years ago, told the New York Times that of the 115 schools USAID, the U.S. government's aid agency, promised to rebuild, work has started on only 14 to 20. But USAID's Pakistan director Andrew B. Sisson defended the development programme as "a long-term enterprise" that would take time to build.

STABILITY AND PROSPERITY

Nancy Birdsall, Wren Elhai and Molly Kinder of the Washington-based Center for Global Development agree a long-term commitment is needed "to put Pakistan on a healthier development path - and to make the world a better, safer place".

A year's worth of U.S. aid to Pakistan - $1.5 billion - equals around five and a half days of military spending in Afghanistan. "If that relatively small investment can nudge Pakistan slightly towards a more stable, prosperous path - and possibly avoid billions in military costs later - it will have earned the United States massive returns," they wrote in a blog.

London adopts a similar line. "British aid to Pakistan is not just aid from Britain, but also aid for Britain. It is in Britain's national interest to help tackle the root causes of extremism such as poverty, inequality and lack of education," International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell said in a statement. "Thanks to British taxpayers, another four million children will be educated over the next four years in Pakistan."

If you're a child in Karachi, your chance of getting an education is worse than in any other city in the world, Mitchell noted. And development experts worry it's those children who will bear the brunt of any politically motivated decision to cut Pakistan's aid lifeline.

The focus instead should be on delivering more targeted support that gets better results, they argue.

"No, now is not the time to abandon ship by cutting off the development programme in Pakistan. Now is the time to right the ship," blogged the Center for Global Development analysts.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

-->