Less US military aid to Pakistan harms ties, not army

A US decision to suspend $800 million in military aid to Pakistan is more likely to drive the wedge between the troubled allies deeper than compel the military to fight harder against Taliban and al Qaeda linked militants on its territory.
White House Chief of Staff William Daley confirmed on Sunday a New York Times report that the Obama administration had held off a third of $2 billion in security aid in a show of displeasure over Pakistan’s cutback of US military trainers, limits on visa for US personnel and other bilateral irritants.
It would be damaging to the relationship if Washington held back on funds, former ambassador to the US, retired major-general Mehmood Durrani said. “This is something that they have to pay, and if they don’t then its breach of agreement and breach of trust.”
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last month that Washington is not prepared to continue the same levels of military aid to Pakistan unless it sees some changes in the relationship.
Washington wants the Pakistan military to cut ties with the militant groups it has nurtured in the past, and launch ground operations in North Waziristan.
Pakistan says it is doing all it can to fight militants, including a deadly militancy at home which has left thousands dead.
Not substantial: Ayesha Siddiqa, an expert on the military, downplayed the military impact of the cuts, saying it was not “substantial enough to immediately change policy”. “Is it going to majorly undermine operations? I don’t think so.”
The US cutback may, however, influence the Pakistanis to do the exact opposite of what the Americans are pushing them to do, Siddiqa said.
The decrease in training, spare parts and specialised equipment might push the military to negotiate with groups rather than fight them, she said.
“If the partnership frays,” she said. “Pakistan is no longer seen as fighting America’s war. You can negotiate with militant groups then.”
But, she added, that would only be to seek breathing room while the army recalibrates the balancing act it has maintained for a decade: Stage enough military operations to keep anti-Pakistan militants off-balance (and US money flowing in) but avoid going all out against militant groups targeting allied troops in Afghanistan. “There will be no major change of strategy.”
But while the military could weather the storm, the economy might be hit if Washington holds back on what is called the Coalition Support Fund.
The CSF is not aid, but reimbursements for money already spent on military operations, and it goes into the general treasury. So holding back these payments won’t hurt the military, but would strain the country’s finances further at a time when it is battling a deep downturn.
This is part of a high-stakes stand-off between the US and Pakistan, Siddiqa said.
“America understands that Pakistan needs money,” she said. “Pakistan is insolvent. It cannot disengage (from the United States), so eventually it will turn around.”
“Military aid is just an indicator of what American can do,” she added. “If they pull back economic aid as well, everything else would dry up, including the multilaterals.”
Negotiations with the International Monetary Fund, which is propping up Pakistan’s economy with a $11 billion loan programme, could be affected.
“The short-term effect would be more political than economic because it sends out a negative signal that Pakistan and US relations are not going well at this moment,” said Asif Qureshi, director at Invisor Securities Ltd.