Posted By Stephen M. Walt Share

At the New Yorker blog, Steve Coll reports that the U.S. Congress is preparing a five-year $1.5 billion per annum non-military aid package for Pakistan, with full support from the Obama administration. (You can read the text of the legislation, entitled the "Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act," here.) 

This step sounds impressive, until one remembers that Pakistan's population is nearly 180 million and its GDP in 2006 was about $144 billion. So the aid package amounts to around a 1 percent increase in Pakistani GDP, which works out to about $8 for each Pakistani. In other words, the U.S. Congress is going to increase their per capita income from $850 per year to about $858. (It's actually less than that, because some of the money goes to administrative expenses, auditing, and the like.)

This act might have some symbolic value, and I'm willing to assume that a few good things might get done with the money. But let's not forget that Pakistan has already received about $45 billion of U.S. economic and military aid since 1946 (measured in constant 2007 dollars), so it’s not like $1.5 billion today is going to work miracles. Moreover, because money is fungible, even careful accounting can't prevent Pakistan from shifting some of its own resources to other areas, which means the areas we are trying to help (such as education and public health) may not get that much better.

Overall, it's hard for me to believe it will have much effect on the lives of ordinary Pakistanis or do much to erode the endemic anti-Americanism there. Pakistan actually got a big influx of money after 9/11 (due in part to increased U.S. aid and also to a lot of reverse capital flight), yet the increased cash either went to the army or tended to fuel financial and real estate speculation instead of genuine economic growth. Moreover, even with the best of intentions, big aid initiatives like this one are bound to reinforce perceptions that the United States is perennially interfering in Pakistani society, which probably reinforces hostility and suspicion.  

Instead of another aid package, we could probably do more to help Pakistan by removing U.S. tariffs on Pakistani exports (e.g., textiles), which would benefit Pakistani producers and American consumers alike. But that would trigger opposition from domestic interests here, so Congress will just adopt the politically convenient but less helpful step of appropriating more money.

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

SICULO ARABI

4:37 PM ET

May 26, 2009

Contrasting aid to Pakistan with that given to Israel

In contrast to the $1.5 billion to be given to Pakistan, US foreign aid to Israel this year is ~$3 billion.

But as I point out in my Sunday Iranian PressTV interview, subsidies and cost are also relevant numbers.

The AfPak mess in general and the need to supply Pakistan with more military aid in specific are all part of the cost of the US Israel alliance and should be discussed in those terms.

 

BLUE13326

5:10 PM ET

May 26, 2009

The real question is why

The real question is why Pakistan is spending so much money on expanding its nuclear weapons capability at this time.

 

JJACKSON

6:46 PM ET

May 26, 2009

A radical suggestion?

If we want to be viewed as other than the greatest threat to Pakistan by its people rather than giving more money to the elite, that no one at ground level will ever feel the effect of, we could try not killing them by firing missiles from drones at them. Regardless of how good the ‘terrorist kingpin’ to ‘hapless bystander’ ratio is this is a propaganda war you can never win and inevitably will further divide a supposedly democratic government from a population that thinks the US is the enemy. If the government falls do you want a government that truly reflects what the people think about the US?
Safety Tip: Carefully check the polling data before answering that one.

 

GRAND SEN-OR

6:55 PM ET

May 26, 2009

Thanks JJackson, I don't need

Thanks JJackson, I don't need to post anything today, you've said it all:-)

The US is addicted to support Shahs;->

Grand Sen~or.

 

SREEKANTH

1:55 AM ET

May 27, 2009

insurgencies don't always succeed

Christopher Hitchens, the thinking man's neocon, writes in Slate about the Sri Lanka insurgency. The last paragraph, especially, should be required reading for all such armchair analysis about how "war never works" :

quote begin

It's just not true, as some liberals tend to believe, that insurgencies, once under way, have history on their side. As well as by nations like Britain and Russia, they can be beaten by determined Third World states, such as Algeria in the 1990s and even Iraq in the present decade. Insurgent leaderships often make mistakes on the "hearts and minds" front, just as governments do, and governments are not always stupid to ban the press from the front line, tell the human rights agencies to stay the hell out of the way, and rely on the popular yearning for law and order. It can also be important to bear in mind, as in Sri Lanka became crucial, that majorities have rights, too.

quote end

 

GRAND SEN-OR

4:24 AM ET

May 27, 2009

majorities have rights,

majorities have rights, too.

Sure they have, in modern State structure in fact they have exclusive right to make law and inplement it to all, denying all the SPEEs' right to law.

Grand Sen~or.

 

JJACKSON

1:13 PM ET

May 27, 2009

And he is arguing what exactly?

Sri Lanka is beautiful, and a mess, I once lived there and my step mother is a Burgher (mixed Dutch and Singhalese decent). None of which can excuse what has been going on there. Keeping the press, and NGOs, out of the Jaffna area has just taken the breaks off both sides adding to the horror. It is almost impossible to get the international community to agree on anything, about the only thing I can think of that they agreed trumped national sovereignty was the need to prevent genocide – and even that left wiggle room on interpretation. Wars don’t work? Try looking at a map most of the boundaries seem to have had a war play at least some role where the line was drawn, and much of the fighting around the globe is irredentist in nature including in Sri Lanka.

 

SAMEERA RASHID

4:52 AM ET

May 27, 2009

It is important to understand

It is important to understand the causes of anti-Americanism in Pakistan.Since Pakistan's birth, its religious parties or the rightist elements have been anti-American because of USA's support of Israel(birth of Pakistan co-incided with the creation of Israel). The leftist elements in Pakistan oppose USA for lassiez faire economics,and, currently, stridently denounce MNCs based in USA.
However, a lot changed after 9/11. Pakistan government's involvement in the US war on terror led to the emergence of anti-American feelings amongst the Pakistanis having moderate religious tendencies and such citizens who neither had rightist nor leftist political leanings.The reasons:i)the war onslaught was being led by an undemocratic government headed by a military dictator;ii)the military dictator shrewdly portrayed the 'war on terror' as USA's war to reinforce his indispensability before Bush administration, though making it deeply unpopular at home;iii)clandestine operations of Musharaf regime such as handing over of suspected persons to USA and thus opening of the saga of "missing persons" in Pakistan's current history;iv) and, lastly, the drone strikes.In addition, the vibrant Pakistani electronic media helped propel anti-American sentiments by projecting images of women beating their chests for missing husbands, sons and brothers and also by telecasting the horrid pictures of the drone strike victims.
Luckily,( as stated in Mr. Sreekanth's post that 'insurgent leaderships also make mistakes on the "hearts and minds" front') Taliban leadership in Swat committed some mistakes and that helped build political consensus in Pakistan for the current military operation in Swat. At this juncture, US moral and economic support will aid the democratic government of Pakistan to withstand difficulties related to military operation and may also help in reducing anti-American feelings emnating from war on terror. Though, it is true foreign aid will not resolve all the issues.

 

WADOSY

9:32 AM ET

May 27, 2009

remember the chinese port at gwadar?

the chinese supposedly spent 200 million developing that port, installed a handful of cranes, and so far there's been maybe a couple shiploads of wheat and 100,000 tons of urea unloaded there.

the port was supposedly gonna be the new dubai, or something like that, but it would hinge on gas from iran and turkmenistan, chinese LNG and oil tanker terminals, a chinese LNG liquefaction plant, and a chinese oil refinery... all of which are big no-nos to the neocons, who intend to bring china to heel by restricting chinese access to energy.

so gwadar real estate values plunged, development stagnated, and nothing seems to be happening except the urea shipments, which will be handy for fertilizing the opium in helmand, or building truck bombs like the one used in oklahoma city.

.
the whole operation could be seen, i spose, as another example of chinese go players outsmarting neocon checkers players... the chinese spend 200 million to lure the neocons into spending trillions to thwart a supposed chinese plan.

however way you look at it, the israeli american lose again, mainly because the chinese can buy oil and gas faster than we can steal it.

a couple days ago, the pakistanis and iranians signed an agreement to go ahead with the iran-pakistan-india pipeline without india, but there have been so many of these pipeline agreements signed and nothing ever comes of them...

...and this agreement will encourage india and israeli america to stir up more trouble in balochistan, to hinder further progress.

oh well

map

 

OMBRAGEUX

1:14 PM ET

May 27, 2009

The Importance of Symbolic Value, or the Marshall Plan Redux

I honestly don't know enough about the U.S. image in Pakistan and our propaganda operations to say if this kind of package is a productive exercise.

I think it probably is helpful though. The Marshall Plan of the early Cold War granted the whole of Western Europe the equivalent of only 1/3 of 1 year's defense budget (about $13 billion), spent over 5 years. Economic historians (notably the expert on the matter, Alan S. Milway) claim the Marshall Plan gets too much credit for the economic miracles of postwar Europe, and really, the Plan merely 'greased the wheels' of a process that would have come anyway.

However, the *political* impact of the Marshall Plan was tremendous. As an act of generosity and enlightened self-interest, it was perhaps the greatest PR move the U.S. ever made. It decisively turned European public opinion towards the United States, at a moment when Communist (ex-resistance) movements and the Soviet Union enjoyed considerable prestige for their role in destroying Nazism.

A 1% boost to GDP is not insubstantial, but it will not be critical economically. But I can certainly imagine, if the aid's impact was visible, positive, and recognizably American, that a similar dynamic could occur in Pakistan. I don't know the situation well enough. It is perfectly possible the average Pakistani would not know about the aid, or it might get siphoned off and used for darker ends by corrupt intermediaries. I can see how this kind of thing could pay off though.

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More