Is the American aid cut rational?

The POST, Sun, June,18, 2006.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema


While there is no doubt that the right to increase or cut the aid is always with the donor but to reduce the amount or to introduce cuts on the basis of dissatisfaction of target country’s performance without putting forward a rational justification is indeed a subject for critical evaluation. It has been reported in the newspapers that a proposal to curtail $100 to $150 million from the Foreign Military Fund and $50 million from Economic Support Fund has been sent to the House of Representative. The cut has been suggested on the charges that Pakistan has failed to improve democracy and its poor human rights record.

The Pakistani spokesperson stated recently that the government’s dissatisfaction has already been conveyed to the US administration and demand has been made that the pledged aid should be given to Pakistan. The US embassy in Islamabad issued a press release clarifying that the administration remains committed to the aid levels proposed for Pakistan. It further clarified that the aid bill is not Pakistan specific bill. Besides it has not yet become a law. In  June 2003,  President Bush had announced $3 billion military and economic aid package to be given in installments spread over the years from 2005-9.

Indeed the bill is only a preliminary step. It has yet to pass through the US Senate. It is not certain that the US Senate would also follow the same course as has been adopted by the House of Representative. After all one cannot ignore what happened last year. A somewhat similar situation developed last year but the US administration eventually restored the proposed aid cuts. To pass a verdict before it has been approved by Congress and assented by the President does not seem very appropriate.

Why does such a situation arises when the American administration frequently asserts that Pakistan continue to remain an important friend and a vital ally especially in the war against terrorism? Many factors account for such developments. To begin with the qualifying phrase invariably indicates that Pakistan’s importance remains confined to its role in the war on terror despite the fact that the Pakistani leadership have repeatedly stressed that they are in the international coalition to combat terrorism because of its own reasons as Pakistan is a victim of terrorism. Undoubtedly Pakistan’s massive contributions in war against terrorism are well recognized and Pakistani efforts are universally commended. 

Second, the situation develops in which aid cuts are proposed because of the efforts of both the insiders as well as the outsiders whose efforts are geared to advance their own agenda. It is a well known fact that innumerable groups not just employ professional lobby firms but mobilize their direct influencing mechanism in order to promote their objective. Similarly the target groups/societies/countries that are also likely to be affected would activate their efforts in order to ward off the anticipated cuts and augured impact.

In case of aid to Pakistan, the Indian lobby has always been very active in attempting to block the aid or at the least introduce cuts. Compared to Pakistan which hardly ever criticizes even those agreements or developments which have direct bearings for Pakistan’s national interest between its adversary and a third country, Indian record has been extremely impressive in not missing any opportunity to block aid or sale of material to Pakistan advancing some times the most ridiculous excuses. But repeated and consistent efforts often tend to influence the target country.

Cognizance of the fact the American society can be easily influenced by repeated media doses, they employ the lobby firms to advance their designs. Even if they are unable to achieve their objectives, they feel satisfied as having painted the target country black which in turn could be useful, in their perception, in future pursuits. The similarities of system are repeatedly highlighted in order in inculcate the notion that they are following the similar values. But the target country tends to view such pursuits as part of a strategy devised to attain their coveted objectives.

Third, the insiders also tend to create more space for themselves by dropping hints the need to do more in certain specified area. Different statements are issued by different officials with a view to provide more space to their own decision makers. Many interpret this type of approach as forms of pressures. A big power always feels happy if it retains some kind of leverage over the other which can be used whenever the need arises.

Sometimes the insiders tend to overlook the shortcomings of their friends and are easily swayed by one sided argument. The argument that Pakistan is not doing enough in the war against terrorism is often employed by some insiders and outsiders like the Afghan regime. While the government of US explicitly recognize the Pakistani efforts especially in the war against terrorism but some government functionary would not hesitate in issuing statement that Pakistan should do more. Two interpretations could be easily advanced regarding such statement if it is issued by the official of US. One is that the concerned official has the tacit approval of his government to issue undesirable remarks. Second, he has issued such statement on his own initiative without having it cleared from its own government. While it is debatable whether or not the concerned official obtained the necessary green light from his government, one thing is certain that it would generate pressure on the target country.

The Pakistanis often get perplexed from contradictory statements and policy pursuits. For example it was reported in the newspaper that $50 million is proposed to be cut as Pakistan has not done enough to improve the nature of western style democracy in Pakistan. Many Pakistanis argue and highlight the point that US clearly reflects contradictory stance in their policies. On Pakistan, the US reportedly is suggesting aid cuts because Pakistanis have not lived up to US expectations on path to fully western style democracy where as the Palestinian are punished for having fulfilled requirements of democracy but having elected the wrong group of people. In other words you can be punished for not having fulfilled the requirements of western democratic norms but you can also be punished for upholding the requirements of western style democracy.

The question whether or not the aid cuts are rational could only be looked at within the context of super power and small powers relationships. Nations form alliances, sign agreements in congruence with the dictates of their national interests and requirement of prevalent environments. Both the environment and the dictates of national interest can change and nations are expected to adjust their policies accordingly. Therefore the Pakistanis need not to be emotionally upset with proposals like aid cuts or aid adjustments. Besides, one should not expect strict adherence to principles, norms governing states behavior or even rational policy pursuits. We live in a semi anarchic international political system in which nations form, modify and adjust policies in correspondence with the operative climate and the dictates of national interests.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy Research Institute.