Posts Tagged ‘foreign aid’

Inconsistency And The Nation’s Editorials

Friday, December 18th, 2009

Inconsistency and The Nation's editorialsThe Nation has taken a contradictory position on US Aid, saying that Pakistan should both refuse all aid and request more aid from the US depending on whether the claim fits The Nation’s immediate political agenda. These contradictory positions demonstrate that the only consistency in the The Nation’s editorial page is anti-Americanism and anti-government.

Today’s editorial page includes the column, “Right way, at last!” in which the editors of The Nation pen the following suggestion for the Americans:

Mr Obama should also pay heed to Mr Zardari’s remark that the Swat campaign has caused an expenditure of $2.5 billion and there is need for Washington to come forward with increased assistance.

That’s right. Suddenly, The Nation is asking for President Obama and the Americans to increase aid to Pakistan.

Let’s look back at past editorials of The Nation. On November 10, 2009 the editorial “The truth please!” read as follows:

Finally, the military needs to distance itself from the US, even if the political leadership cannot do so for their own interests…It is time to create a distance between the Pakistan and US militaries and see how the latter fares in Afghanistan.

And lest we forget the drama around the Kerry-Lugar bill? Even before the controversial conditionalities were known, The Nation was already calling into question the aid in an editorial, “The price of US aid”.

The passage of this aid bill was an inevitability, given Pakistan’s importance to the War. However, that does not mean Pakistanis need welcome it…

As we can see from their own words, the position of the editorial staff at The Nation about foreign aid from the USA  changes more often than the price of sugar. If the US offers some aid, The Nation says we don’t need to welcome it, then they say the Americans are not giving enough aid! The Nation says the military should distance itself from the Americans, that the US has negative intentions, then they say that the US should be giving more support to Pakistan!

The only consistency in The Nation’s editorials is that they are anti-America, except when they are for increased American participation. The Nation is also anti-government, except when they say that Zardari is doing “what a democratically elected leader ought to be doing.”

In fact, the only consistency in The Nation’s editorial page seems to be the inconsistency. That you can count on.

Pakistan’s conspiracy theories

Saturday, November 21st, 2009

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then … anyone who tells you it is a duck must be hiding something. So goes the logic of conspiracy theories which are gaining increasing currency in Pakistan because of the wave of gun and bomb attacks in its towns and cities.

As reported in the New York Times, India, Israel and the United States are frequently blamed for the violence, as is the U.S. security company formerly known as Blackwater.

The Pakistani Taliban, according to al Jazeera, appear to have capitalised on that by blaming Blackwater for two attacks that most shocked Pakistanis — one a suicide bombing on a market crowded with women and children in Peshawar which killed more than 100 people and the other an attack on the Islamic University in Islamabad. (more…)

Ahmed Rashid on the Purpose of Waziristan Offensive

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

In Ahmed Rashid’s latest piece “Waziristan or Bust,” the renowned Pakistani journalist and author of Descent into Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia, grapples with the immense pressure Pakistan faces to succeed in its Waziristan offensive.

“The success of the offensive could be critical for the fate of Pakistan which is financially broke and politically paralysed,” he writes. He connects the financial crisis with the controversial Kerry-Lugar bill, “The army was furious that the government had agreed to US-imposed conditions, which only insisted that there be civilian control of the army, democracy be maintained and the fight against extremism continued. The army with its deep tentacles in the Pakistani media and among opposition politicians, whipped up a storm of public opinion against the deal.”

All this, he laments, was utterly ridiculous as the country was crying out for aid and assistance in the midst of the terror threats, poverty, and a generally harsh quality-of-life.

The fact remains that Pakistan has to pull itself away from the brink, and the measuring standard for just that will be this offensive. Its results will be telling, a trusted barometer for whether the Zardari administration can command the army and be supported by a public eager to end extremism.

Rashid notes President Zardari seems happy to talk peace and trade with India, aid in the stabilizing of Afghanistan and improve ties with Iran. He welcomes aid from the west so that his country can become stronger and secure. Yet, there is an intense backlash against his efforts, indeed, Rashid writes, “Zardari’s attempts to build up public support for these logical civil demands have been stymied because of public disillusionment with the civilian government.”

We can all agree stability can only happen when all sides come to the table, with an agreed upon set of priorities. A common plan to combat extremism whilst working out itnernal issues is the critical key to moving the country forward.

To Rashid and countless others, that looks like a tough hill to climb.