Abstract
The U.S-Pakistan relations have been under scrutiny since the assassination of Osama bin Laden by the American seals. While the U.S.A has been providing Pakistan with millions of dollars each year as foreign aid, the Pakistan government has been instrumental in helping the U.S fight against al Qaeda. However, the large amount of aid given in exchange for this cooperation has been a major source of concern for American. This paper provides an insight on why despite the imbalances in this symbiotic relationship; it is still in the interest of Unites States of America to provide aid to Pakistan.
Why the U.S. should give Foreign Aid to Pakistan
The Islamic republic of Pakistan is found is South Asia. It has a population of approximately 180 million people. The republic of Pakistan receives millions of dollars each year from the international community in terms of foreign aid. This was largely informed by the need by the international community to ensure an operational government which is effective in handling terrorism. However, despite receiving millions of dollars each year to fund military operations and training, and civil projects most of the foreign aid has been largely misappropriated. The country has a lot of corrupt politicians and an inefficient and ineffective civil service.
The United States of America has provided the republic of Pakistan with more than $ 20 billion dollars as foreign aid in recent years. This raised concerned among American tax payers about whether their tax revenue is being put to good use. Questions been asked even at the congress on whether the United States should continue giving aid to Pakistan to run its operations instead of Pakistanis paying taxes to run their government. While pro-aid scholars argue that it would be a disaster if American stooped its aid programs to Pakistan, its opponents argue that it is immoral to let only about 0.57% of Pakistanis pay income tax and relying on aid for other recurrent and expenditure budgets. This paper will argue a case on why America should continue giving aid to Pakistan. The paper will first enlists argument from proponents of this view and give sufficient reasons on why such a policy is in the interest of the American government and its citizens at large. The paper will then canvas the arguments propagated by the opponents of foreign aid to Pakistan. In the conclusion, the paper will give reasons of why it holds such an opinion in light of strong and convincing argument on both sides of the case.
The American policy of continued foreign aid is premised on three cardinal reasons. First and more fundamentally, is the fact that Pakistan is a legitimate nuclear country. It is the only Islamic nation that has been recognized by the international community as having nuclear weapons. The United States has the responsibility of ensuring a sustainable Pakistan which will be able to keep away the nuclear weapons form the hands of terrorist organizations that are numerous in the region. Therefore, without a stable and reliable Pakistan government, the Taliban which was formed by the late Osama Bin Laden would easily siege nuclear weapons which would be a conundrum to the America government. The senate has acknowledged that Pakistan is a ‘schizophrenic’ ally and any attempts to cut aid to it have been quashed. Dr. Shakil Afridi was jailed for 33 years for allegedly helping the American government pin down Osama bin Laden. This strained U.S-Pakistan relations with the U.S cutting aid by at least $33 million dollars. Nevertheless, successive governments have come to a similar conclusion that continued assistance to Pakistan is in the interest of Americans. According to John Boston, who was the U.N ambassador of the United States at the U.N, foreign aid will avert a situation which would allow the Taliban to retain power and influence in the republic of Pakistan. He further stated that it vital that the nuclear weapons in Pakistan must be closely watched. Therefore, a productive and positive U.S-Pakistan relationship is critical in order to ensure success in dismantling, disrupting and completely defeating the Al Qaeda.
The second reason why the United States must continue to support Pakistan financially is the fact that in order to sustain the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan, Pakistan is an essential partner. This is because more than 80% of fuel and food stuff that is shipped to soldiers in the barracks and to the front lines passes through Pakistan. Therefore, the situation in Afghanistan is largely dependent on the political will of the Pakistan government. The eventual withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan will also have to receive consent and support of the Pakistan. It is worth noting that the compound upon which Osama bin Laden was fought was a few miles away from the Pakistan military academy. Several scholars have argued that some elements in the military must have been aware of his presence in the vicinity. Therefore, if aid is stooped, this would make Pakistan an automatic enemy of United States. History would repeat itself if aid was cut as instability would reign again in the region.
The third reason is the fact the security of the entire South Asia region is partly dependent on a stable Pakistan. It is vital to note that the stability of the republic of Pakistan largely affects the security situation in Iran, China, India and more fundamentally Afghanistan. Pakistan is a highly populous country that has significant social, religious, economic and political problems. The country’s population suffers from a high rate of illiteracy, unemployment, poverty and religious extremism. Cuts in foreign aid which ensure that the struggling civilian government has enough resources to ensure stability would lead to disaster.
On the other hand, those in opposition of foreign aid to Pakistan argue that countries like Britain and other international community partners are cutting aid to Pakistan. They argue that the huge amount given as aid are largely misappropriated by state mandarins without due regard to specific civil projects that were designed to benefit from such funding. Moreover, most Pakistanis who are able and capable of paying taxes should be taxed to fund development projects in their country. In a country of more than 180 million people less than 0.57% pay income tax. This leads to extremely low level revenue collections. Proponents of this view argue that it only morally right that the rich Pakistanis should also pay their fair share towards building their country. The revenues collected from American tax payers can then be channeled towards more urgent priorities that would directly affect the American tax payer and make their livelihood more comfortable.
In conclusion, it is vital for there to be a consensus between these two fractions of school of thoughts. While it is not only desirable, but also fundamental that Pakistanis be encouraged to ensure economic independence and American tax payers getting value for their money, it is also essential continue providing aid to this country. This will be of mutual benefit for both countries in the long run. Therefore, as the American government works towards eliminating terror groups in South Asia, a pragmatic ad systematic approach should be adopted to improve Pakistan tax system and other revenue collection and political systems. Immediate foreign aid cuts are undesirable and would hurt the United States interests.
Works Cited
Cannon, Mae Elise. Social Justice Handbook: Small Steps for a Better World. New York: InterVarsity Press, 2009.
Lancaster, Carol . George Bush's Foreign Aid: Transformation Or Chaos? Chicago: CGD Books, 2008.
McGrath, Kevin . Confronting Al-Qaeda: New Strategies to Combat Terrorism. New York: Naval Institute Press, 2011.
Picard, Louis A, Robert Groelsema and Buss. Foreign Aid and Foreign Policy: Lessons for the Next Half-Century. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2007.
Kenneth, John . Culturism: A Word, a Value, Our Future. New York: eBookIt.com, 2013.
Lancaster, Carol. Foreign Aid: Diplomacy, Development, Domestic Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
