On Thursday, Pakistani PM Yousaf Raza Gilani announced to the nation that the army was being called into Swat, “to restore the honor and dignity of our homeland.” He asserted in his nationally televised address, “We will destroy those elements who have destroyed the peace of our people and our nation.” According to the Washington Post, Gilani’s speech “signaled the final collapse of a fragile peace accord between the government and Taliban forces in the Swat region.” The address, a day of fierce air bombardment against militant positions, also marked the beginning of a ground offensive similar to the one already underway in neighboring Dir and Buner districts, where the army claims to have killed more than 200 militants in the past two weeks, reported the Guardian. In the wake of the address, army sources announced that a curfew from 8pm to 6am had been imposed in Swat to prevent Taliban fighters from escaping as wave after wave of attack helicopters and artillery shells pounded suspected militant hideouts.
The announcement occurred as the trilateral talks between Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States came to an end in Washington D.C. yesterday. President Zardari further echoed Gilani’s sentiment at a joint news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and U.S. Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar, where he stressed Pakistan’s commitment to defeating terrorism. When asked how long the operation in Pakistan would continue, Zardari responded ambiguously, “The operation will go on till the situation returns to normal.” He added, “There’s a realization in the world that it’s a regional problem, a worldwide problem. It is not an Afghan or a Tora Bora problem. It is not a problem secluded in the mountains of Pakhtoonkhwa…This realization brings strength to the fight.”
Although U.S. special envoy Richard Holbrooke said the main aim of the trilateral meetings were to develop “real cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan because without that cooperation success is not achievable,” the current offensive in Pakistan seemed to be the most pressing issue highlighted by officials and the media. In fact, noted the NY Times, “The timing of Mr. Gilani’s address was hardly an accident. He made it a day after Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, met with President Obama in Washington. American officials have expressed alarm that the Taliban militants are threatening the integrity of the Pakistani state. Mr. Zardari has asked Mr. Obama for more military and economic aid, and Mr. Obama has indicated that he intends to oblige him.”
“Oblige him” is a little easier said than done, though. Although Senator Kerry expressed “hope” that the U.S. Senate and House “would be able to overcome the differences between their bills for providing assistance to Pakistan,” BBC News reported that many lawmakers in Congress are wary of giving a “blank check” to Pakistan. BBC’s Mark Urban reported, “They [lawmakers] want ‘conditionality,’ linking the flow of dollars to Pakistani cooperation on everything from fighting the Taliban, to reining in the ISI, securing nuclear weapons and gaining access to AQ Khan.” Holbrooke, in response to these demands, said the administration “did not believe in conditionality but accepted that benchmarks are required to measure Pakistan’s performance.”
In my effort to understand this issue further, I spoke to Shuja Nawaz, the author of Crossed Swords and director of the Atlantic Council‘s South Asia Center. Although Pakistan does not want “upfront conditions,” he noted that it is understood among the Pakistanis that there have to be financial conditions. However, the indicators or benchmarks noted by Holbrooke must be an effort carried out by the Pakistanis. The government needs to “get their act together” like they did prior to the April Tokyo Conference, where international donors pledged more than $5 billion to help stabilize Pakistan. According to Shuja Nawaz, Pakistan’s finance minister Shaukat Tarin put together “an impressive framework” to show how the aid will be distributed and spent in Pakistan. A similar framework and effort must be made in order to garner much-needed U.S. aid and assistance.
In her testimony this week before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Christine Fair, a senior political scientist with RAND Corporation, also discussed this issue, advising:
It is essential that these processes and benchmarks be developed in concert with the Pakistani government. Both the United States and Pakistan must agree on how progress will be assessed and how remediation will be addressed. Pakistan must be a partner in achieving these objectives rather than an adversary being forced to acquiesce.
If Congress does approve the aid package for Pakistan, which will increase its civilian aid package to $1.5 billion annually, it is extremely important to know where that money is going so that aid can be more effective. There must be more accountability and responsibility, both on our part and the United States. Ultimately, we need more bang for our buck. In my conversation with Shuja Nawaz yesterday, he noted that USAID is appropriately named “because the aid seems to stay in the U.S.” He used U.S. aid to Afghanistan as an example, noting that only 10 cents of the dollar is actually spent on the Afghan people. Chris Fair, in her testimony, noted, “USAID’s business model relies heavily on layers of contractors to deliver services, something that likely results in much of the funding returning to the United States, suboptimal outcomes, and greater Pakistani and American disappointment with the quality and quantity of benefits delivered to Pakistani citizens.”
In my past interview with Samia Altaf, a public health physician who previously worked with USAID in Pakistan [and is penning a book on U.S. aid implementation], she noted, “It often comes down to program design and implementation strategies. Many of the donor supported programs are not designed with Pakistan’s context in mind. Also there is not much attention given to serious evaluations of mistakes and poor results. Nobody…asks why the program failed to deliver results.”
Although Pakistan drastically needs aid, not just for its military efforts but more importantly for education and development, we also need to learn how to help ourselves. According to Chris Fair, U.S. legislation, while providing military and economic assistance, must also enable Pakistan to “increase its ability to raise domestic revenue through tax reform and any commitment to collect taxes that are due.” Although this scenario is highly unlikely in the immediate future, in the long-term Pakistan’s capacity must be increased so that we are not as fiercely dependent on foreign aid.
For now, as the military offensive continues and the subsequent humanitarian crisis worsens, foreign assistance is increasingly needed. Let’s hope that this time, especially given the intensifying debate, we will actually see the benefits of this funding.
Great caption!
Thanks Faraz. I couldn’t help myself. That smile, that muchi, that brylcreem head of hair…it all screamed funny caption in the making.
And there was a photo someone put on another blog where you could see Bilawal Bhutto in the corner next to Zardari – helllooo dynastic politics of Pakistan.
How true about the USAID funding. Most of it ends up in the pockets of consulting firms…a miniscule amount is seen by the recipients.
I also wanted to know…are people happy about the military offensive?
You could probably speak more to the sentiments of people on the ground, but this post originally did have a para dedicated to the political parties’ reactions to Gilani’s address. I deleted it because my post was getting extremely long, but here’s the link: http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/11-political-parties-react-to-military-action-in-swat–04
And here’s the key line in it: “Despite reservations by some mainstream political parties on the Prime Minister’s announcement, there is general consensus that the growing Talibanization needs to be tackled effectively. Many believe the government should use this opportunity to take the battle against militancy to its logical conclusion.”
What is sad to me is how many people are stuck in the crossfire. Obviously on Tues/Wed the UNHCR estimated that 500,000 people were fleeing Swat from the fighting, but there have been a number of people that weren’t able to get out in time.
I listen to BBC World radio while I’m at work, and heard a really chilling interview with a man who was still with his family in Mingora. He basically said the Taliban had cut trees to block the roads so people couldn’t leave by vehicles. While many who are left are too scared to leave, some are trying to get out on foot, which is exceedingly dangerous given the cross-fire and the ground offensive that is starting.
In a statement issued today though, the UNHCR did say that people were taking advantage of the partial lifting of curfews to move into safer areas. Between 150,000 to 200,000 IDPs have already arrived in safer areas in the frontier over the last few days; with another 300,000 already on the move or about to move.
I heard somewhere the government has promised a job for at least one member of each family that is affected by the Swat conflict. Does anyone have any more information on this?
They have? Where did you hear that? I can try following up on that story, it sounds interesting if true. I wonder how feasible that is!
Someone living in Pakistan relayed the information to F, could be propaganda they’re feeding the Pakistani people? I’d be interested to know if this is the case.
[…] }); Read more at: CHUP! – Changing Up Pakistan afghan president hamid karzai, afghanistan pakistan, air bombardment, army sources, artillery […]
great post kals!
[…] More than half a million Pakistanis have been displaced due to the fighting and this has become a humanitarian crisis. And this is not going to end anytime soon. After the recent tripartite talks between Afghanistan, Pakistan and USA, Pakistan’s Prime Minister vowed for “elimination” of militants, as CHUP! – Changing Up Pakistan reported. […]
[…] More than half a million Pakistanis have been displaced due to the fighting and this has become a humanitarian crisis. And this is not going to end anytime soon. After the recent tripartite talks between Afghanistan, Pakistan and USA, Pakistan’s Prime Minister vowed for “elimination” of militants, as CHUP! – Changing Up Pakistan reported. […]
After working in the nonprofit field on US Government funded projects, I have to say that I agree to an extent with Shujua NAwaz’s comment about US government money. Especially in war torn places like Afghanistan and Pakistan, a lot of money goes towards contracting firms for things such as security, and that money detracts from the objectives of whichever project is being implemented. Although I know AID is working towards this- it needs to divert more of its funding towards local organizations which can sustain the projects after the USG pulls out, with just a small management role for the gigantic for-profit development firms that have made a killing in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thanks Eman,
I actually had an interesting conversation with an American about this topic this weekend. He said that although our complaints are fair, USAID is still providing vital jobs in the flailing economy. While I personally disagree with that notion because I hold the long-term benefits of said aid for the Pakistani population, I can see his point from a strategic perspective. What do you think?
Makes me sick to think about 1.5 billion dollars being usurped from an economy in the middle of a total collapse. Frankly, Obama could not do a better job engineering the financial destruction of the country.
The US can’t afford the aid, and by extension can’t afford to make any political demands. The US can’t afford to mitigate the Taliban threat at this time. It’s not of economic value or importance to the US.
HGW,
I know you’re a very strident libertarian, but from a U.S. security angle, how can they NOT provide aid to Pakistan? I understand that Pakistan should stand on its own two feet, yada yada…but currently, our government is not exactly a strong administration. How can the U.S. expect them to lose further power?
The US cannot provide aid because they cannot afford it, because it’s not authorized by the US constitution, and because the US economy desperately needs resources allocated in the most efficient way possible right now. Any money given to Pakistan is money taken away from an efficient area and reallocated to an inefficient one. Governments have no money to give..they only the ability to reallocate purchasing power by use of force, for which they have no authority to do in the first place.
See what our president is doing http://www.scci.net.pk/Blog/405.html