• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "S. Akbar Zaidi"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "democracy",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "DCG",
  "programs": [
    "Democracy, Conflict, and Governance",
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "South Asia",
    "Afghanistan",
    "Pakistan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Democracy",
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

Who Benefits from U.S. Aid to Pakistan?

A longer-term U.S. engagement and commitment to civilian and development aid in Pakistan might result in strengthening democracy in the country instead of reinforcing the military dominance that thwarts U.S. counterterrorism goals.

Link Copied
By S. Akbar Zaidi
Published on Sep 21, 2011

After 9/11 and again following the killing of Osama bin Laden, questions have been raised about the purpose of aid from the United States to Pakistan. If aid was primarily meant for military and counterterrorism support, the results from an American perspective have been inadequate at best. Washington has accused the Pakistani government and military of duplicity, and of protecting key militant leaders living within Pakistan. The United States continues to ask the government of Pakistan to “do more.”

There are Pakistani voices, however, who argue that this is America’s war, not a global or Pakistani war. The fighting has cost Pakistan three times as much as the aid provided and 35,000 victims. Sympathizers of militant groups in Pakistan’s army have also been found to protect insurgents and have been involved in terrorist activities themselves.

Clearly, trust is low.

The lack of trust didn’t start following 9/11—Pakistan’s aid relationship with the United States has a tortured history. In the 1950s and 1960s, U.S. aid stimulated growth for Pakistan and did not focus excessively on military assistance to the detriment of development programs. Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, problems emerged that haunt the aid relationship to this day. American efforts against the Soviets unintentionally strengthened Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies, their supremacy over civilian institutions, and rising jihadism that would grow to engulf both the country and the region.

Then after 9/11, the spigot of aid nominally meant to help the fight against terrorism instead supported the military acquisitions of the Pakistani army and only modest progress in counterterrorism operations. With military aid much higher than economic aid, U.S. assistance has strengthened the hand of Pakistan’s military in the country’s political economy and failed to support the civilian government and democratic institutions.

But changes in the U.S. and Pakistani administrations in 2008 shifted aid toward development. Perhaps a longer-term engagement and commitment to civilian and development aid might result in strengthening democracy in Pakistan instead of reinforcing the military dominance that thwarts U.S. counterterrorism goals. This shift can illuminate how American aid to Pakistan can address both U.S. and Pakistani objectives and concerns.

About the Author

S. Akbar Zaidi

Former Visiting Scholar, South Asia Program

Zaidi was a visiting scholar in the Carnegie Endowment’s South Asia Program. A visiting professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), his research focuses on development, governance, and political economy in South Asia.

    Recent Work

  • Q&A
    Rethinking U.S. Aid to Pakistan

      S. Akbar Zaidi

  • Q&A
    Pakistan After the Floods

      S. Akbar Zaidi

S. Akbar Zaidi
Former Visiting Scholar, South Asia Program
Political ReformDemocracySecurityMilitaryForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesSouth AsiaAfghanistanPakistan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Is Russia Winning the Perception War in Germany?

    In Germany, competing perceptions of Russia are highlighting a tension between public opinion and government policy. In the country’s east, where division is widespread, populist parties are taking advantage.

      • Gwendolyn Sasse

      Gwendolyn Sasse

  • Article
    Turkey’s Four Headaches Are Also Europe’s

    Between stalled economic ties and a push for greater security cooperation, EU-Turkey relations remain uncertain. Ankara’s continued slide toward autocracy is the likeliest common denominator in these competing dynamics.

      Marc Pierini

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Member States Must Make Enlargement Their Own

    The European Commission is preparing the EU for its next enlargement. But member states need to make it a project that European citizens can understand, shape, and support.

      Iliriana Gjoni

  • Planetary Power: Geoengineering and the New Geopolitics of Climate Intervention
    Research
    Planetary Power: Geoengineering and the New Geopolitics of Climate Intervention

    Geoengineering is becoming a geopolitical question as much as a climate one. The way states and the private sector pursue these technologies, assess risks, and drive research increasingly appears focused on gaining a strategic edge. In a field where governance in lagging behind, Europe should keep track of the geopolitical implications if it is to develop effective regulatory frameworks.

      Olivia Lazard, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is Burnham’s EU Policy Bold Enough?

    Resetting relations with the EU is a central plank of the UK’s current foreign policy. Is Andy Burnham being bold enough or is he falling into the same trap as his predecessors, misreading the power dynamic?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.