US assistance to Pak favours army not people

US aid to Pakistan since 2002 has been ar too heavily weighted in favour of military assistance, ithout requiring or even expecting commensurate results in the ar against terror, Robert Hathaway, head of the South Asia rogramme at the Woodrow Wilson Centre, told the Senate ubcommittee.

Washington, Dec 7 : US aid to Pakistan since 2002 has been ar too heavily weighted in favour of military assistance, ithout requiring or even expecting commensurate results in the ar against terror, Robert Hathaway, head of the South Asia rogramme at the Woodrow Wilson Centre, told the Senate ubcommittee.

"We have made no effort to distinguish between military ssistance useful for our common counter-terrorism efforts, and id with little or no connection to the war against al Qaeda, nor ade provision of the latter contingent upon cooperation in ombating the extremists in Pakistan," Hathaway said.

"We have allowed a blanket justification of counter-insurgency to e used to rationalise assistance programmes and arms sales with inimum or non-existent connection to that objective," he added.

Hathaway said that America's largesse to the Pakistani military as encouraged the widespread belief in Pakistan that the US ides with that country's dictators rather than its democrats.

In this fashion, we have alienated potential friends and mbittered those Pakistanis who share our values and our vision or their country, he claimed.

"We have established economic and development programs that have requently been unfocused, poorly conceived, or lacking in esponsible oversight. We have required neither stringent ccountability mechanisms for our aid, nor the sorts of erformance benchmarks we routinely impose on other aid ecipients," he said.

Hathaway said American assistance to Pakistan as to all ecipients, is not simply an act of altruism. The US has every ight to expect something in return for aid.

Hathaway said that the Bush Administration officials have never dequately explained as to why Washington should not require igorous Pakistani support in return.

The Bush Administration has justified virtually all US assistance o Pakistan in terms of counter-terrorism. To the extent that the akistani security apparatus has been employed since November 3 n rounding up lawyers, opposition politicians, journalists, and uman rights activists, it is difficult to argue that nconditional backing for Pakistan's military supports the war gainst terrorism.

Inaction, he warned, conveys messages just as forcefully as ction. Pakistanis will draw conclusions about Washington's osition and preferences regardless of whether the White House or ongress endorses or condemns, issues tepid equivocations, or emains absolutely silent. Under these circumstances, it behoves he US to stand with those who should be its natural friends in akistan.

The US, he stressed, must not give the impression that it is ictating to Pakistan. It should also remain modest in its xpectations, the Daily Times quoted Hathaway, as saying.

He said that by supporting those Pakistanis whose values parallel ur own, US aid can help prepare the way for a more sustainable elationship in the long run.

"Congress should insist upon a thorough review of US assistance o Pakistan since 2001, including assistance funnelled through he Department of Defence. This review ought to be conducted by a ully independent body, and not simply by the Department of tate," Hathaway proposed.

ANI