Q&A
S. Akbar Zaidi
{
"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.
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.
- Rethinking U.S. Aid to Pakistan
- Pakistan After the FloodsQ&A
S. Akbar Zaidi
Recent Work
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 Endowment for International Peace
- What Does the Strait of Hormuz’s Closure Mean?Commentary
In an interview, Roger Diwan discusses where the global economy may be going in the third week of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.
Nur Arafeh
- Russia’s Imperial Retreat Is Europe’s Strategic OpportunityCommentary
The war in Ukraine is costing Russia its leverage overseas. Across the South Caucasus and Middle East, this presents an opportunity for Europe to pick up the pieces and claim its own sphere of influence.
William Dixon, Maksym Beznosiuk
- Takaichi’s Security Agenda After the Landslide ElectionArticle
Backed by a new LDP supermajority, Prime Minister Takaichi aspires to revise Japan’s long-standing security doctrine. Ahead of her visit to Washington, she faces fiscal hurdles for her proposed defense spending while needing to navigate President Trump’s request for naval assets to the Strait of Hormuz.
Harukata Takenaka
- Is the Radical-Right Threat Existential or Overstated?Commentary
Amid increased polarization and the influence of disinformation, radical-right parties are once again gaining traction across Europe. With landmark elections on the horizon in several countries, are the EU’s geostrategic vision and fundamental values under existential threat?
Catherine Fieschi, Cas Mudde
- Tehran’s Easy TargetsCommentary
In an interview, Andrew Leber discusses the impact the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran is having on Arab Gulf states.
Michael Young
