You have to love the language the US media uses when discussing American aid to Pakistan.
There is no new aid. But the latest coverage pertains to a report released by the American inspector general's office on the Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid bill.
The inspector general has released a report criticizing US aid's limited impact on improving civilian services in Pakistan.
This civilian aid was approved in 2009, $7.5 billion over five years, beginning in early 2010.
The new report questions the aid's impact, which is negligible. That's not news to us.
But there are bigger myths that surround this aid package to Pakistan in the US media. It's a classic case of US government spinning to itself and its people and then believing its own spin.
I was reading a Fox News report on this aid that described it as 'massive' and quoted unnamed commentators who opposed 'lavishing' US aid on Pakistan.
Massive and lavish? Hardly.
This aid package is not massive and not lavish. Pakistan has been undersold to US interests by two US puppets, Pervez Musharraf and Asif Zardari. If Pakistani nationalists were in power, US officials and media would have heard more frequently about more than US$ 64 billion that Pakistan has lost directly and indirectly because of America's war in Afghanistan.
Washington has knowingly hurt Pakistan's geo-strategic environment and interests in ways far worse than how it abandoned Pakistan after the Soviet defeat in 1991, leaving Pakistan to deal with thousands of militants that CIA gathered to fight the Soviets.
US officials are still hung on 1991 when analyzing Pakistani estrangement but are unaware of the new estrangement that has emerged because of the American mess since 2002.
Compared to a loss of $64 billion in eight years, the Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid package is peanuts. It is not massive nor lavish. It is nothing compared to what US is spending in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and Israel. All of them prove that Washington has been paying lip service to its Pakistani ally while doing things that harm the interests of this supposed ally.
The list of things America has done to harm Pakistani interests is long. Many US officials know about this list but pretend it doesn't exist because the pro-US government in Islamabad never raises it, leaving the Pakistani public opinion to worry about it.
The result is that the US discourse on aid to Pakistan is couched in myths and will not help further US interests on the long run.
And despite all the noise to the contrary, US doesn't appear much worried about this. The Obama administration has resorted to gimmicks in how it uses the 2009 aid package. The flow of funds from the package is slow. Each cash installement released is geared toward creating positive headlines than having any real positive impact on the ground. Since 2009 Washington has been making aid announcements to meet various Pakistani needs as if these announcements indicated new aid. But in all of these announcements US officials forgot to mention this was not new aid but a reallocation of Kerry-Lugar-Berman funds.
In short, the US government has been recycling old aid pledges repeatedly to make them look new, and then embellish the story to make aid to Pakistan appear 'massive' and 'lavish'.
This is what the Obama administration did during last year's epic floods in Pakistan. The much touted US helicopters arrived only when pro-US politicians begged Mr. Holbrooke and Mrs. Clinton to cover up for their incompetence in view of the excellent performance of Pakistani NGOs and the Pakistani military.
This shows the level of US disinterest in genuinely helping its Pakistani ally. No wonder this is a troubled relationship. A pro-US government in Islamabad worsens this relationship by not addressing these issues because it needs US help to counter the Pakistani military and can't afford to talk tough to its protectors in DC.
So my advice to US commentators, especially those who toe the official line: Please spare us the spin.
There is no new aid. But the latest coverage pertains to a report released by the American inspector general's office on the Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid bill.
The inspector general has released a report criticizing US aid's limited impact on improving civilian services in Pakistan.
This civilian aid was approved in 2009, $7.5 billion over five years, beginning in early 2010.
The new report questions the aid's impact, which is negligible. That's not news to us.
But there are bigger myths that surround this aid package to Pakistan in the US media. It's a classic case of US government spinning to itself and its people and then believing its own spin.
I was reading a Fox News report on this aid that described it as 'massive' and quoted unnamed commentators who opposed 'lavishing' US aid on Pakistan.
Massive and lavish? Hardly.
This aid package is not massive and not lavish. Pakistan has been undersold to US interests by two US puppets, Pervez Musharraf and Asif Zardari. If Pakistani nationalists were in power, US officials and media would have heard more frequently about more than US$ 64 billion that Pakistan has lost directly and indirectly because of America's war in Afghanistan.
Washington has knowingly hurt Pakistan's geo-strategic environment and interests in ways far worse than how it abandoned Pakistan after the Soviet defeat in 1991, leaving Pakistan to deal with thousands of militants that CIA gathered to fight the Soviets.
US officials are still hung on 1991 when analyzing Pakistani estrangement but are unaware of the new estrangement that has emerged because of the American mess since 2002.
Compared to a loss of $64 billion in eight years, the Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid package is peanuts. It is not massive nor lavish. It is nothing compared to what US is spending in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and Israel. All of them prove that Washington has been paying lip service to its Pakistani ally while doing things that harm the interests of this supposed ally.
The list of things America has done to harm Pakistani interests is long. Many US officials know about this list but pretend it doesn't exist because the pro-US government in Islamabad never raises it, leaving the Pakistani public opinion to worry about it.
The result is that the US discourse on aid to Pakistan is couched in myths and will not help further US interests on the long run.
And despite all the noise to the contrary, US doesn't appear much worried about this. The Obama administration has resorted to gimmicks in how it uses the 2009 aid package. The flow of funds from the package is slow. Each cash installement released is geared toward creating positive headlines than having any real positive impact on the ground. Since 2009 Washington has been making aid announcements to meet various Pakistani needs as if these announcements indicated new aid. But in all of these announcements US officials forgot to mention this was not new aid but a reallocation of Kerry-Lugar-Berman funds.
In short, the US government has been recycling old aid pledges repeatedly to make them look new, and then embellish the story to make aid to Pakistan appear 'massive' and 'lavish'.
This is what the Obama administration did during last year's epic floods in Pakistan. The much touted US helicopters arrived only when pro-US politicians begged Mr. Holbrooke and Mrs. Clinton to cover up for their incompetence in view of the excellent performance of Pakistani NGOs and the Pakistani military.
This shows the level of US disinterest in genuinely helping its Pakistani ally. No wonder this is a troubled relationship. A pro-US government in Islamabad worsens this relationship by not addressing these issues because it needs US help to counter the Pakistani military and can't afford to talk tough to its protectors in DC.
So my advice to US commentators, especially those who toe the official line: Please spare us the spin.
but we are still happy,,,,
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice if you posted links to these stories you cite, it would add weight to your arguments.
ReplyDeleteAnd where does $64 billion in direct and indirect losses come from for Pakistan support in the war on terror? It would be nice to see the analysis that led to such a figure.
From 1965 to 2014, the United States will have paide $25 billion. These are not small potatoes. Newsweek has a nice timeline of the aid that Mr. Quraishi thinks its paltry:
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/10/21/about-those-billions.html
You are right. The Fox News report that describes the Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid of US$7.5 billion over five years as 'massive' and says its useless to 'lavish' Pakistan with such an amount can be seen here http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/08/report-needs-progress-pakistan-aid/
ReplyDeleteAs for aid to Pakistan from 1965 and until 2014 totaling $25 billion, this is again a misleading statement typical of the figures cited by US government sources that serve a publicity purpose more than anything else.
1. Does this amount include $7.5 billion in yet-to-be-paid Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid bill? Almost none of this figure has been transferred to Pakistan.
2. Does this figure include money spent by US on recruiting, training and arming the mujahideen in Afghanistan between 1980 and 1988? If so, this was not aid to Pakistan even if some of it was channeled through Pakistani sources. Highly misleading.
3. Does this figure include reimbursements to Pakistan against the use of Pakistani facitilies by the US military for the war in Afghanistan between 2001 and until now? The Bush administration perfected the art of misleading the wolrd opinion on these reimbursements and mischaracterized them as aid. Unfortunately, a US stooge at the helm in Pakistan at the time failed to raise his voice high enough to protest this dishonesty on the part of US administration. If you recall, the 'we-gave-you-10-billion-for-terror-war' mantra was a fixture in US talking points during the Bush administration days and no one pointed out that half of this amount was not charity but money paid in exchange for using Pakistani facilities.
4. How much of this supposed $25 billion is actually loans and not aid or grants? How much of it was money earmarked to pay for US hardware and was paid on the condition it would only be used to buy American military hardware?
You can see how successive US governments have been using the aid bogey to show that Pakistan somehow owes US policymakers to be an obedient satellite and follow whatever strategic guidelines churned out by US think-tank types.
But not so fast, mister.
As for Pakistani losses amoung to US$ 64 billion until the end of 2010 due to America's war in Afghanistan, this figure was the conclusion of a detailed report prepared by the Pakistani federal ministry of finance and was part of the documentation forwarded to senior US officials prior to and during the Pakistan-US strategic dialogue that commenced in March 2010.
You may not know about this but if anyone from the US government was reading this he or she would know exactly what we are talking about.
Thanks for your prompt reply. My response:
ReplyDeleteThe $25 billion is a sum of all the aid listed in the Newsweek article.
1. Yes, the $25 billion includes the $7.5 that will be paid to Pakistan by 2014.
2. The $5 billion paid to Pakistan was for Pakistan alone. Funds for the war in Afghanistan was separate and was often matched by Saudi Arabia dollar for dollar.
3. The use of Pakistan facilities is not part of the aid package but are paid separately, specifically out the US Defense Budget. The Coalition Support Fund also compensates Pakistan as well.
4. The $25 billion mentioned is all aid, not loans. Loans are also separate. Pakistan's external debt of $54 billion includes all outstanding loans, including those to the United States. It's only natural that military aid is used to buy American equipment, which Pakistan military wants. Any country would do the same, otherwise it wouldn't be called military aid.
I would appreciate if you had a link to this report. I went to Pakistan's Ministry of Finance web site and could not find it there. If you have an electronic copy I would appreciate it.
I agree with the position that Pakistan has some legitimate grievances against the United States, but the idea that US didn't spend money on Pakistan is, well, absurd.
All we need is independence from the US. We have everything and we do not need their aid like beggars.
ReplyDeleteSystem change is required as soon as possible in Pakistan.
http://ihaveadream-pakistan.blogspot.com/2011/02/present-corrupt-system.html
Pakistan has immense potential to rise above the level it found itself stuck in for the time. All we need is a fair system in place with honest and competent people are the helm:
ReplyDeletehttp://ihaveadream-pakistan.blogspot.com/p/outline-plan.html