Why US suspended, didn't terminate aid to Pakistan

The suspension of American aid to Pakistan to the tune of $800 million was triggered by the cancellation of visas for United States special forces working with Pakistan's Frontier Corps in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. But officials from the Obama administration have acknowledged that it was the crystallisation of several factors that has frustrated Washington in the recent months over Islamabad's actions, or, rather, inactions.

Confirming a New York Times report, White House Chief of Staff William Daley said in a television interview on July 10, "Until we get through these difficulties, we'll hold back some of the money that the American taxpayers have committed to give."

A precursor to such a suspension of aid was first indicated by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who had told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month that "unless and until we see certain steps taken," the American largesse to Pakistan would be in jeopardy.

...

This had consequently led to US Congressional anger and pointed questions to the administration as to why such massive aid to Pakistan was justified when there were all these unanswered questions on Pakistan's 'double-game' and duplicity with regard to the US-led war on terror.

And, all of this was preceded by the Raymond Davis affair, where the Central Intelligence Agency operative had shot two Pakistanis, believed to be Inter-Services Intelligence agents. Pakistan for weeks refused to release him although the US kept maintaining that he had diplomatic immunity.

After the suspension of aid, Pakistan got into a damage control mode of sorts. ISI chief General Shuja Pasha rushed to Washington to meet senior administration officials and acting CIA Director Michael Morrell to alleviate the unravelling partnership.

"There is a larger issue lurking in the background, however, that the Obama administration -- like its predecessor-- is unwilling to confront. Pakistan's duplicity with regards to counter-terrorism cooperation in Afghanistan is a considered strategy that is driven by Rawalpindi's conception of its own interests. Those interests compete with the both Washington's and Kabul's aims in the region. Unless, this fundamental fact is appreciated, slapping Pakistan on the wrist episodically is unlikely to yield any lasting fruit," he added.

Tellis argued that what is needed is a concerted US strategy on defeating Pakistan's efforts at frustrating American and Afghanistan motives in Kabul.

He said, "One way to achieve this is to mount a comprehensive and thorough campaign at coercing Pakistan. This approach would be difficult, painful for both sides, and risky, but it stands a better chance of changing Pakistani behaviour than a token and transitory suspension of aid."

"The other way to achieve American aims is to strengthen Afghanistan directly by committing the resources necessary to obtain military success and by making a long-term commitment to Kabul's security. Unfortunately, Obama has punted on this option, leaving the United States with the worst of both worlds -- an inability to compel Pakistan to change its behaviour, even as a weakening US commitment to Afghanistan only strengthens Rawalpindi's propensity to continue playing the spoiler in the region."

Thus, Tellis predicted that keeping in mind the current trends, Pakistan is likely to have the last laugh because it appears more resolute in achieving its aims in comparison to the United States, a fact that will only pave the way for continuing strife in Afghanistan over the long term.

"Reacting to this dilemma, both governments seem to have adopted two similar sets of strategies. On the one hand, there is public growling by high-level officials against the other country, whose objective seems to be to inform an angry public that the government is defending the national interests against the high-handedness of the other side. So, you have the US joint chief of staff Admiral Mike Mullen saying publicly he believes the Pakistani government sanctioned the recent killing of prominent Pakistani journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad," he said.

The suspension of $800 million in military aid, Andersen said, is yet another manifestation of the public anger -- about one-third of the military aid provided annually to Pakistan. "And then there are the reports, apparently leaked, of the Pakistani military's continuing links to militant groups," he added.

From the Pakistani side, Andersen said, some 100 US military trainers are expelled. People who had provided information on bin Laden's location are picked up for questioning. The military expresses its outrage at the violation of the nation's sovereignty.

The issuance of official visas for US officials has been slowed. Pakistani Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar warned that his government might withdraw troops from tribal regions bordering Afghanistan as a response to the suspension of US military aid.

Andersen, just before his retirement from the diplomatic service, for years was the chief of the State Department's Intelligence and Research Bureau. "The apparently leaked information about militant evacuation of four bomb-making facilities after the US informed Pakistani intelligence about the location is probably meant to send a signal that we are watching closely and have the intelligence capabilities of doing so. And that we consequently know when the level of cooperation is less than expected," he noted.