U.S. Aid to Pakistan should be continued

1. Past aid cuts failedPakistan is provides the only land route to Afghanistan, over which 80% of the NATO troop supplies enter the country. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. It teeters between support for democracy and the fight against terrorism and the alternative of supporting theocratic fanaticism and terrorism. It is large country, population 190 million, but poor overall. Per capita GDP is $2800, ranked 174th of 228 countries. [1. https://www.cia.gov... ] the poverty is mainly de to political instability, and because it is a poor country relatively small amounts of U.S. aid can potentially have a large impact.In the 1990s, U.S. aid to Pakistan was cut in an attempt to discourage them from developing nuclear weapons. As a consequence, they allied with China to obtain nuclear technology and successfully tested nuclear weapons in 1998. Pakistani government officials sold nuclear secrets to North Korea after 9/11. [2. http://digitaljournal.com...]. Last year, military aid to Pakistan was cut, lowering total aid from about $2 billion to $1.3 billion. Pakistan subsequently raised the transit fee for NATO supplies to Afghanistan from $250 to $5000 per truck. [2. http://www.bbc.co.uk... ]U.S. aid to Pakistan is now mainly going to health, humanitarian relief, education, and debt relief. [3. http://blog.aiddata.org... ] The purpose is to reinforce the institutions supporting democracy so that radical movements are less likely to take hold as an alternative. Total U.S. foreign aid is $53.3 billion, [4. http://www.reuters.com...] and total U.S. expenditures are $ 3796 billion. [5. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Current yearly costs of Iraq ad Afghanistan wars is about $171 billion. [6. http://www.infoplease.com...] The cost of aid to Pakistan is modest compared to the total war effort. 2. Diplomats favor continuing aidThe issue of aid crosses Party and ideological lines. Progressive Sen. Leahy and conservative Sen. Graham agree that Pakistan is "a schizophrenic ally" in the war against terrorism. [2. op cit ] Dr. Shakil Afridi was imprisoned with a sentence of 33 years for allegedly helping the CIA locate Osama bin Laden, but he was not allowed to defend himself and it's not clear that he even knew that bin Laden was the object of search. It's unlike that bin Laden, living a mile from Pakistan's military academy. was unknown to some in the Pakistani government. The Senate has initiated reducing the $1 billion in aid to Pakistan by $33 million in retaliation for Afridi's imprisonment. Top Obama Administration diplomats and top former Bush Administration diplomats agree that continuing aid to Pakistan is in the U.S. national interest.Former Bush U.N. ambassador John Bolton, said aid must be continued to help "Prevent the Taliban or Al-Qaeda return to power in Afghanistan and ensuring that the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan never falls into the hands of terrorists or radicals." [7. http://www.varight.com...] In a message to Congress supporting continued aid to Pakistan, Secretary of State Clinton cited the need for civilian aid to stabilize the economy of Pakistan, and to maintain “a positive and productive relationship with Pakistan” necessary to achieving the “core goal of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda.” [8. http://dawn.com...]Pakistan originally obtained nuclear weapons with aid from China to establish détente with India. Currently the stockpile of weapons appears to be secure, protected by the Pakistani army. The Pakistani government contains terrorist sympathizers, however, as witnessed by the protection of bin Laden. "Pakistan is again facing the possibility of instability, raising concerns that its nuclear weapons are not in safe hands. Once again the ability of Pakistan’s army to secure the weapons is in doubt. The big powers of the world often ask whether Pakistan will be able to overcome this new danger or not. " [9. http://communities.washingtontimes.com...]3. Withdrawing aid would make Pakistan an enemyA former Pakistani diplomat, Maleeha Lodhi, who served twice as ambassador to the United States, said of the military aid cuts, “It will be repeating a historic blunder and hurting itself in the bargain by using a blunt instrument of policy at a time when it needs Pakistan’s help to defeat Al Qaeda and make an honorable retreat from Afghanistan,” Ms. Lodhi said of the United States. Washington imposed sanctions on Pakistan in the 1990s, and in the process lost influence with the Pakistani military, Ms. Lodhi said. Similarly, the Obama administration would find itself out in the cold with the Pakistani Army if it held up funds, she said." [10. http://www.nytimes.com...]Isobel Coleman, Senior Fellow and Director of the Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy Initiative, writes, "As tensions escalate between the two countries, demands across the United States are growing for Washington to cut off aid to Pakistan. However, history reminds us of the dangers of walking away. Deeply concerned about Pakistan's clandestine nuclear program, we did that in the 1990s. As relations with the United States deteriorated, Pakistan pursued ties with the Taliban--part of its "strategic depth" initiative to counter India and bring "stability" to Afghanistan after the Soviet occupation. It also continued an aggressive nuclear program too, complete with disastrous global proliferation." [11. http://www.cfr.org...] Secretary Clinton addressed Congress and "reminded US lawmakers that this strategy was rooted in a lesson 'we have learned over and over again — lasting stability and security go hand in hand with economic opportunity'. That’s why, she added, it was critical that civilian assistance continued in both Afghanistan and Pakistan as 'disengaging now would undermine our military and political efforts and the national security interests of the United States'." [8. op cit] Diplomacy is subtle craft. It's difficult to precisely predict outcomes because of the many factors involved in appraising a situation. When Ambassador Bolton and Secretary Clinton agree, that is as good an assurance as we can reasonably expect. Bolton is quoted from a recent interview with Greta Van Susteren, in the context of aid to Pakistan: Tensions between the two countries [India and Pakistan] continue to grow, and Bolton said the situation is made worse by the instability of the government in Pakistan. Bolton said he worries it could become a “grave” issue if the country’s nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands. “Its ability to hold together in the face of Islamic radical infiltration is very much in question these days,” Bolton said. “The security of its nuclear weapons and the capability on the ballistic missile front are not just abstract issues and confined to India. This is a global problem.” “That’s why,” he added, “the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, and how we deal with the al-Qaida and [the] Taliban, both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, remains extremely important for the United States directly.” [12. http://canwebelieveit.com...] Military aid has already been cut to very low levels. That negative effect, because Pakistan simply raised the "fees" for using the land route to Afghanistan. The U.S. cannot influence where the fees go, as opposed to directing military aid to anti-terrorist training. What's left is aimed at stabilizing the government and promoting democracy. That aid should be continued.