Pakistan: US Aid versus Expatriat

[BarakzaiAbdali]

"Some fact-checking is indeed in order. Pakistan is a $175 billion economy. Since 2002, the US has provided on average $825 million annually in economic assistance to Pakistan. On the other hand, Pakistani expatriates have remitted on average $1 billion each month in 2011, making remittances an order of magnitude higher than what the US has been providing to Pakistan. I would argue that Pakistan’s economy owes much more to what the expatriates contribute than what comes in charity from the United States."

An informative article:

http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/15/can-p...ut-us-aid.html

[Amir al Ghaznavi]

this is an excellent point to raise wrora, but can one not argue that expat remittance tends to go towards the common man more (ie its sent directly to families who then put that money into the pakistani economy through purchase of goods) as opposed to us aid which is used to line pakistani elite pockets?

hence, while expat money is better for the state of pakistan, the elites make decisions out of their own self interest and not that of the nation, hence the us money goes a longer way?

[Wahe Guru]

The USA has given a lot of aid to Pakistan if you compare aid from other countries to Pakistan. In comparison China has given very little and what it has given is tied to spending that money with Chinese companies. The US aid however has not always been spent to help the common man. It has been misused and a lot has gone into pockets of the elite as said.

[randolph85]

US aid was never meant to help the common man. its direct aid to the military.

[Karachi]

american aid is for the military and government. I really hope they stop the aid

[R3SISTANC3]

The aid from US goes directly to those in power while the expatriates contribution goes towards national infrastructure. So the article is right in that respect. To the army and politicians the US aid is far more important. That money goes directly to their pockets and keeps them armed powerful. The expatriate contribution actually weaken the feudal and military control since it empowers private and civilian institutions.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

this is an excellent point to raise wrora, but can one not argue that expat remittance tends to go towards the common man more (ie its sent directly to families who then put that money into the pakistani economy through purchase of goods) as opposed to us aid which is used to line pakistani elite pockets?

hence, while expat money is better for the state of pakistan, the elites make decisions out of their own self interest and not that of the nation, hence the us money goes a longer way?

100% agree. I think that was what I was getting at by posting the article. I think a key difference between India, China, and Iran on the one hand and Pakistan and Afghanistan on the other is that the former appeared to break the strangle hold of these corrupt elites in a manner that made sense for each of their individual nations. It did not have to be Maoist Communism for the other two nations as it was in China's case. Pakistan is the perfect example of how 5 or 6 regional families in each ethnic area control the politics and even the economy in their area. Many of these families were British installed. A case study for you Ghaznavi, is one that I learnt about while talking to some Pashtuns from the Khalil tribe. The Arbab Khel clan is like the Sadozai or the Hotaki (i.e. Khan Khel) of the Khalils, but the current leading political family was installed by the British and sustained by the Sikhs as well. The Arbab had a few sub families, some of which supported the resistance movements against the corrupt Telai-Barakzai sardarship and subsequently British rule. These families were pretty much martyred and shut out and other locals were given lands in redistribution and elevated.

Its not class warfare that I am trying to promote. I agree with Orwell's book Animal Farm... there are always new "pigs" waiting to feed at the trough. Its simply that leadership comes with a burden. If you are a Khan and you represent your people, you may decide that a part of your duty is to protect the people from themselves and comprimise with an outsider or invader to "survive and live another day." But there is a limit to this in terms of maintaining integrity and the respect of those being led. There is also far sightedness and understanding what the prospects are for your culture, your religion, and your people under such comprimises, not just in the here and now, but in the coming centuries (that is, your people may live another day in the flesh and blood sense but your unique identity can decay under occupation as happened with the Native Americans).

The Pakistani elites locally and nationally are really on par with the rotting Muhammadzai dynasty. Both groups are/were out of touch with the will of the people to the extent and are perfectally happy to sustain the status quo for selfish purposes. When economic or local inflammatory actions unsettle the paradigm of distracted stability that these folks have erected, their true face comes to the fore. If Pakistan were to ever experience an invasion, the masses would be left to fight and die and these family members would be sitting pretty in dubai.

Therefore, I think the author may make a valid suggestion in that if Pakistan's elite money slush fund supply line is cut off, one need not worry tremendously because you will basically maintain proper oxygenated flow to the rurals and the upper crust cancer will suffocate and slough off.

The problem is that the Pakistani military has such an inordinate amount of respect amongst the Pakistani people. Just as in Canada, the US, or other Western countries where a professional is revered or respected, the army officer in Pakistan is the guy who everyone thinks "has it made." He's got his car and driver and his bungalow. That organization and the elites have one overarching goal that they never vere from: Pakistan must survive at all costs and in whatever incarnation maintains their status. This is their mantra they live by. To them, anything and anyone can be sacrificed to achieve this goal, whether it be a revered figure or simply a reporter who highlites the "wrong" details. They justify this by viewing themselves as playing a cloak and daggers game with the US in which the US and Pakistan perpetually know what each other is up to, but Pakistan's side stepping taking a confrontational stance allows them to bog the US down in a war of attrition and sustained state of money injection. Therefore, to these folks, each commoner who dies has basically been an expendable commodity relabeled as an honorable sacrifice for Pakistan and thus by extension, the only autonomous nuclear muslim populated state.

The steps to deal with the above appear to be as follows:

1) The US needs to withdraw completely and take its money with it
2) The Kashmir issue needs to be dealt with - definitively - one way or another
3) Surrounding powers should take a neutrality stance towards it.

This approach will create a situation where
A) The greedy elites are put on the spot and dont have defensive resources
B) The bogeyman game that holds the Pakistani confederecy together wherein disparate ethnic and social strata groups are united by fear of outside nefarious forces will no longer be a sustainable propaganda line (just as the whole war on terror biz is fizzling out here in the US as the economy comes to the fore in the minds of people) under general economic durress as the elites attempt to quickly loot the nation's treasures and hoard up whatever remains.
C) The Pakistani people will be forced into the same confrontation that the Egyptian people where in with their military and their leaders.