An American political newspaper described the proposed changes as a request for greater transparency and accountability in how the Congress is spending American tax payer’s money.

Legislative language withholds three-quarters of the funds until the Defense and State Department come up with a report to Congress on how the money is being used and what metrics are being used to measure progress by Pakistan in rooting out terrorist and Taliban elements inside its borders.

These may be simply accounting details intended to prevent corruption, but this is not how the proposed changes to American aid are being characterised by the media.

On Friday, Dawn misreported proposed changes to American aid in an article titled, ‘Obama to address Pakistan’s concerns’. The Dawn article includes the following claim:

Earlier this week, lawmakers proposed linking 75 per cent of US assistance to Pakistan to its performance in the war against terror.

Dawn is not the only media group to sensationalise the story by characterising it as a punishment or another example of the ‘do more’ mantra. On Thursday, Dunya reported that ‘US Congress seeks to axe Pakistan’s aid by 75%’.

The US Congress Appropriations committee recommended a 75 percent reduction in the US aid to Pakistan.

This claim is incorrect. The American Congressmen did not simply recommend reduction in US aid to Pakistan, but asked only for greater accountability and transparency in how the money is spent. If the money is not being spent properly, then it would not be granted. Looked at this way, the proposal is an anti-corruption measure in the US Congress.

To its credit, The News (Jang Group) reported the story more accurately:

The panel approved the $649 billion in defense spending bill on a voice vote and forwarded it to the full House for consideration, expected later this month. The Senate is still working on its version of the bill. The two houses must pass the same bill before sending it to Obama for his signature.

However it should be noted that The News report was actually taken directly from a report by Reuters without giving attribution. Additionally it should also be noted that The News changed the headline from the original Reuters piece:

‘House panel backs $649 billion in defense spending’

To a different headline that gives a story about the American political process and accountability a different meaning:

House panel puts bar on US aid to Pakistan

The report published by The News may be the most accurate of the stories quoted here, but it should be asked why did Jang Group choose to change the original headline?

Many media groups are reporting that American aid is being ‘barred’ or ‘cut’ when careful examination of the facts reveals that the American Congress appears to be including additional accountability and transparency measures that affect the US White House, not Pakistan. This is an important difference that should be clarified for the people. Unfortunately, the reporting appearing in the media is not clarifying the issue, it is confusing it.

The Nation

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.

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.“Surprisingly enough, this whole India-US-Israel theory has a lot of popular currency these days in Pakistan,” writes Asif Akhtar in a blog for Dawn newspaper. ”The myriad of television talk-shows on every news channel are heavily relying on this theory of a triangulated axis of evil out to destroy Islam and Pakistan with one nifty stone’s throw of insurgent terror.”

“If the present reasoning of global evils out to destroy Islam and Pakistan continues, then the only answer is the apocalyptic war which is talked about in fringe mythologies related to the arrival of the Antichrist. The last thing we want is for this to be a self-fulfilling prophecy!”

Foreign journalists have not escaped, being accused of working variously for the CIA, Mossad, and India’s R&AW spy agency, and of course, Blackwater, according to Marie-France Calle in her French-language blog for Le Figaro newspaper.

Conspiracy theories are not new to South Asia, and are usually driven by the assumption that some much more powerful nation must be pulling the strings behind the scenes.

They gained momentum during the 1980s when intelligence agencies ran the covert war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The collapse of the Soviet Union shortly after its withdrawal from Afghanistan underpinned a view of all-powerful intelligence agencies who could redraw the world map – no matter that many historians argue that the collapse was due to many other factors which were quite independent of its Afghan defeat.

“In the world of the conspiracy, powerful actors are not merely mortals with influence but rather god-like beings who direct geopolitics like an opera, and that is just how the powerful often appear to be in this country,” writes Mustafa Qadri in Britain’s Guardian newspaper. “By marshalling conspiracy theories many people, not just in Pakistan, abdicate responsibility for confronting the ills their societies face. If you are playing cards with a cheat, is there any point in trying to get a better hand?”

There is a fine line between conspiracy theories and a healthy scepticism about what those in power are saying. And there is always room for sensible discussion both about the agendas of intelligence agencies, and about the role of private security firms like Blackwater.

But in a country trying to re-establish itself as a democracy, and where economic development is seen as one of the better ways of draining support for the Taliban, how do you develop a strong civil society if voters are constantly being told they have no hope of change since everything is being run by a Hidden Hand?

This article by Myra MacDonald originally appeared on Reuters Blog on  the 17th of November.

“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.