Daily Times

Why do people get addicted to something that, in the long run, turns out to be harmful? Because either it looks good or stimulates the human mind by energising our nerves. Once the effects retrench, the human body begins to feel miserable and then strives to get another dose. Doctors are of the opinion that persons with addiction develop a degree of immunity and that medication fails to neutralise the effects. The best medicine, the doctors argue, is to stay away from it. Foreign aid has a certain degree of addictive powers — once governments taste it, they ask for more and more of it. Very few countries have been able to get out of this addiction; rather governments dig their countries deeper and deeper into debt. Aid is sought to even repay the debt. Officials strive to seek more loans and, in the same breath, request to reschedule debt payment. The cycle goes on endlessly.

Pakistan has been a recipient of foreign aid for a very long period. Mr Jinnah reportedly sought two billion dollars in aid mostly to equip the defence forces. This amount was excessively huge and no country or consortium came forward. However, successive governments in Pakistan gradually developed a proclivity for foreign aid. The Cold War provided a conducive environment for aid, especially when the recipient countries entered into the arms race in the name of building a stonewall against the threat of communism. New Delhi’s pursuit of foreign policy with the emblem of non-alignment had established closer relations with Moscow. This was viewed by the US and west European countries with a degree of suspicion. Though Pakistan had no imminent threat from the communist world, India’s closer relations with Moscow qualified Pakistan to receive aid, a portion of which was always meant for the military.

Against a request of $ 170 million military aid to maintain a regular army of 100,000 in November 1947, the US government approved $ 10 million worth hardware. During 1954 to 1959, the US provided $ 425 million military aid to Pakistan, which included F-86 jet fighters. The US channeled large assistance in expanding the size of the Pakistani army, which, by 1962, became a combat force of 250,000. Pakistan received $ five billion until 1966, which had a significant component for the military. Between 2002 and 2012, Pakistan was provided $ 25 billion as reimbursement from the US and the Arab world for its fight against terrorism. In 2010, Congress approved $ 7.5 billion for five years against projects in education, healthcare and infrastructure development. Earlier, Congress had approved $ 828 million and the aid club pledged $ 5.5 billion. Aid from the US alone during the past 65 years has amounted to $ 40 billion. Pakistan also received generous aid from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. China’s economic and military assistance was no less significant.

A large chunk from this enormous foreign aid has been invested in the defence of the country. Consequently, Pakistan developed one of the best trained and most capable armed forces in the world. Pakistan also acquired nuclear capability as a deterrent to the external threat. Defence analysts at home and abroad have admitted that, in the three wars fought with India, it was Pakistan that pulled the trigger first. India, as expected, responded with all ferocity but two of those wars ended in a draw. Both agreed after those wars to return to the 1947 border. In other words, military adventures brought no tangible dividends. Instead, they brought death and destruction, slowing down economic growth.

Though India has developed a large army and has acquired a nuclear arsenal, it does not have the appetite to launch a military offensive against Pakistan. It is deeply embroiled in combating insurgency in as many as seven states; five of them are located in the remote northeastern region. India does not enjoy a stable relationship with its eastern neighbour, Bangladesh. New Delhi believes the insurgency in its northeastern region has the blessings of some in Bangladesh.

There are issues that trouble both India and Pakistan. Political leaderships are expected to demonstrate brinkmanship and usher in a new era when the actual threat from India has virtually retrenched. The foreign ministry should be reactivated with fresh minds and thoughts to address bilateral issues and transform rivalry into friendship. People in both countries have more similarities than diversities and they look for cordial relations with each other. Political leaderships are often blamed for erecting barriers, separating the people of the two countries. The two great neighbours cannot remain hostage to the past. France fought against Germany and Britain for decades but now they are leading members of the European Union.

However, this cannot be said about our western neighbour. The Taliban have been flexing their muscle from the hills of the Hindukush. The proposed withdrawal of NATO and US forces from Afghanistan by end 2014 has brightened the possibility of the Taliban’s return to power in Kabul. Should that happen, Afghanistan might be gripped by violence and Pakistan would again be burdened with a large number of refugees from Afghanistan. This will pose a new challenge for Pakistan. Unlike in the past, western countries might not be forthcoming with weapons and resources. Pakistan will be required to meet the challenge with home grown strategies.

Poverty, inequality and religious bigotry are still major ills in society. When 35 million people still remain below the poverty line, 65 years after independence, it requires no proof to suggest that something egregiously went wrong in the planning and efforts of the government. Towards the end of the 1960s, officials admitted that too much emphasis was laid on economic growth and very little on distribution. This led to a concentration of wealth in the hands of 22 families and caused huge inequality in society. Why this has happened and how best this can be corrected should be the priority of the government. Failure to evolve a correct strategy or delayed action to reverse the situation will thrust society into the lap of religious extremists.

Pakistan has at last achieved political stability. The National Assembly and the provincial legislatures completed their full term recently for the first time in history. The central and provincial governments also served full terms and a peaceful transfer of power took place following a credible general election. The people and politicians deserve congratulations for this rare accomplishment. Now attention should focus on the economic uplift of the country. There should be a conscious decision not to beg for more aid. Instead, efforts should be made to promote trade, which will be congruent to national pride. Vietnam, Malaysia and Bangladesh have made tremendous progress in expanding their trade during the past two decades. The expansion of trade absorbed a large section of the hitherto inactive labour force and boosted the economy. Pakistan has improved infrastructure, political stability and an educated middle class, which are best suited to attract foreign investment. Political brinkmanship is needed to take the country forward.

The author is a former official of the United Nations